Thanks for taking a look at this, Luciano. Yury immediately replied <https://bugs.python.org/issue31861#msg319520> to the comment from Jelle that you quoted with the following:
> Do these really need to be builtins? > > We're only beginning to see async iterators being used in the wild, so we > can't have a definitive answer at this point. > > > They seem too specialized to be widely useful; I've personally never > needed them in any async code I've written. It would make more sense to me > to put them in a module like operators. > > I think putting them to the operators module makes sense, at least for > 3.8. Do you want to work on a pull request? That was on 2018-06-14. On 2018-08-24, I submitted https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/8895, "Add operator.aiter and operator.anext". On 2018-09-07, Yury left the following comment <https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/8895#pullrequestreview-153441599> on that PR: Please don't merge this yet. I'm not convinced that aiter and anext > shouldn't be builtins. So there has been some back-and-forth on this, and some more years have passed, but all the latest signals we've gotten up to now have indicated a preference for adding these to builtins. In any case, as of my latest PR <https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/23847>, the Python core developers now have both options to choose from. As community contributors, is there anything further we can do to help drive timely resolution on this one way or another? Thanks, Josh On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 11:29 AM Luciano Ramalho <luci...@ramalho.org> wrote: > Thanks for working on this, Joshua. I agree 100% with Jelle Zijlstra in > the issue tracker: > > Do these really need to be builtins? > > They seem too specialized to be widely useful; I've personally never needed > them in any async code I've written. It would make more sense to me to put > them in a module like operators. > > > (sorry for the weird formatting, posting from an iPad) > > On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 21:01 Joshua Bronson <jabron...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Dear python-dev, >> >> New here (but not to Python). 👋 Brett Cannon recommended I start a >> thread here (thanks, Brett!). >> >> In December, two colleagues and I submitted >> https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/23847, "Add aiter and anext to >> builtins", which would fix https://bugs.python.org/issue31861. >> >> Would any core developers who may be reading this be willing and able to >> provide a code review? >> >> We would love to try to address any review feedback before having to fix >> (another round of) merge conflicts. (And ideally maybe even get this landed >> in time for the 3.10 feature freeze in early May?) >> >> Thanks and hope this finds you well. >> _______________________________________________ >> Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org >> To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org >> https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ >> Message archived at >> https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/5XUVPB5H4PFUGTC5F7KAN4STKAEOFBQM/ >> Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/ >> > -- > Luciano Ramalho > | Author of Fluent Python (O'Reilly, 2015) > | http://shop.oreilly.com/product/0636920032519.do > | Technical Principal at ThoughtWorks > | Twitter: @ramalhoorg >
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/GBB2HTTDIYVWQ5ETUTTV34BL73FGWWKV/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
