Hi PJ,
On 2015-04-22 3:44 PM, PJ Eby wrote:
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 1:26 PM, Yury Selivanov <yselivanov...@gmail.com> wrote:
It is an error to pass a regular context manager without ``__aenter__``
and ``__aexit__`` methods to ``async with``. It is a ``SyntaxError``
to use ``async with`` outside of a coroutine.
I find this a little weird. Why not just have `with` and `for` inside
a coroutine dynamically check the iterator or context manager, and
either behave sync or async accordingly? Why must there be a
*syntactic* difference?
One of the things that we try to avoid is to have implicit
places where code execution might be suspended. For that
we use 'yield from' right now, and want to use 'await' with
PEP 492.
To have implicit context switches there is Stackless Python
and greenlets, however, it's harder to reason about the code
written in such a way. Having explicit 'yield from/await'
is the selling point of asyncio and other frameworks that
use generator-based coroutines.
Hence, we want to stress that 'async with' and 'async for'
do suspend the execution in their protocols.
I don't want to loose control over what kind of iteration
or context manager I'm using. I don't want to iterate
through a cursor that doesn't do prefetching, I want to
make sure that it does. This problem is solved by the PEP.
Not only would this simplify the syntax, it would also allow dropping
the need for `async` to be a true keyword, since functions could be
defined via "def async foo():" rather than "async def foo():"
...which, incidentally, highlights one of the things that's been
bothering me about all this "async foo" stuff: "async def" looks like
it *defines the function* asynchronously (as with "async with" and
"async for"), rather than defining an asynchronous function. ISTM it
should be "def async bar():" or even "def bar() async:".
If we keep 'async with', then we'll have to keep 'async def'
to make it symmetric and easier to remember. But, in theory,
I'd be OK with 'def async'.
'def name() async' is something that will be extremely hard
to notice in the code.
Also, even that seems suspect to me: if `await` looks for an __await__
method and simply returns the same object (synchronously) if the
object doesn't have an await method, then your code sample that
supposedly will fail if a function ceases to be a coroutine *will not
actually fail*.
It doesn't just do that. In the reference implementation, a
single 'await o' compiles to:
(o) # await arg on top of the stack
GET_AWAITABLE
LOAD_CONST None
YIELD_FROM
Where GET_AWAITABLE does the following:
- If it's a coroutine-object -- return it
- If it's an object with __await__, return iter(object.__await__())
- Raise a TypeError of two above steps don't return
If you had a code like that:
await coro()
where coro is
async def coro(): pass
you then can certainly refactor core to:
def coro(): return future # or some awaitable, please refer to PEP492
And it won't break anything.
So I'm not sure I understand your remark about
"*will not actually fail*".
In my experience working with coroutine systems, making a system
polymorphic (do something appropriate with what's given) and
idempotent (don't do anything if what's wanted is already done) makes
it more robust. In particular, it eliminates the issue of mixing
coroutines and non-coroutines.
Unfortunately, to completely eliminate the issue of reusing
existing "non-coroutine" code, or of writing "coroutine" code
that can be used with "non-coroutine" code, you have to use
gevent-kind of libraries.
To sum up: I can see the use case for a new `await` distinguished from
`yield`, but I don't see the need to create new syntax for everything;
ISTM that adding the new asynchronous protocols and using them on
demand is sufficient. Marking a function asynchronous so it can use
asynchronous iteration and context management seems reasonably useful,
but I don't think it's terribly important for the type of function
result. Indeed, ISTM that the built-in `object` class could just
implement `__await__` as a no-op returning self, and then *all*
results are trivially asynchronous results and can be awaited
idempotently, so that awaiting something that has already been waited
for is a no-op.
I see all objects implementing __await__ returning "self" as
a very error prone approach. It's totally OK to write code
like that:
async def coro():
return fut
future = await coro()
In the above example, if coro ceases to be a coroutine,
'future' will be a result of 'fut', not 'fut' itself.
(Prior art: the Javascript Promise.resolve() method,
which takes either a promise or a plain value and returns a promise,
so that you can write code which is always-async in the presence of
values that may already be known.)
Finally, if the async for and with operations have to be distinguished
by syntax at the point of use (vs. just always being used in
coroutines), then ISTM that they should be `with async foo:` and `for
async x in bar:`, since the asynchronousness is just an aspect of how
the main keyword is executed.
tl;dr: I like the overall ideas but hate the syntax and type
segregation involved: declaring a function async at the top is OK to
enable async with/for semantics and await expressions, but the rest
seems unnecessary and bad for writing robust code. (e.g. note that
requiring different syntax means a function must either duplicate code
or restrict its input types more, and type changes in remote parts of
the program will propagate syntax changes throughout.)
Thanks,
Yury
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
