2015-04-22 22:46 GMT+02:00 Victor Stinner <victor.stin...@gmail.com>: > > Kind (A): > > - "yield-from coroutines" or "coroutines based on yield-from" > - maybe "asyncio coroutines" > - "legacy coroutines"? >
"legacy coroutines" name has the advantage to be directly clear it isn't a good idea to write new source code with that. > Kind (B): > > - "awaitable coroutines" or "coroutines based on await" > - "asynchronous coroutine" to remember the "async" keyword even if it > sounds > wrong to repeat that a coroutine can be interrupted (it's almost the > definition of a coroutine, no?) > - or just "asynchronous function" (coroutine function) & "asynchronous > object" (coroutine object) > Personally, if I've a vote right, "async coroutine" is just enough, even if it's a repetition. Or just "coroutine" ? I'm not fan for "new-style coroutines" like name. By the way, I hope you don't change a third time how to write async code in Python, because it will be harder to define a new name. Not related, but one of my coworkers asked me if with the new syntax it will be possible to write an async decorator for coroutines. If I understand correctly new grammar in PEP, it seems to be yes, but could you confirm ?
_______________________________________________ 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
