Hello, On Thu, 23 Apr 2015 12:18:51 +0300 Andrew Svetlov <andrew.svet...@gmail.com> wrote:
[] > > 3. > > async with and async for > > Bead idea, we clutter the language even more and it is one more > > thing every newbie could do wrong. > > for x in y: > > result = await f() > > is enough, every 'async' framework lived without it over years. > > async for i in iterable: > pass > > is not equal for > > for fut in iterable: > i = yield from fut But people who used Twisted all their life don't know that! They just know that "async for" is not needed and bad. I know I'm a bad guy to make such comments, too bad there's a bit of truth in them, or everyone would just call me an a%$&ole right away. Generally, I already provided feedback (on asyncio list) that asyncio is based not on native Python concepts like a coroutine, but on foreign concurrency concepts like callback or Future, and a coroutine is fitted as a second-class citizen on top of that. I understand why that was done - to not leave out all those twisteds from a shiny new world of asyncio, but sometimes one may wonder if having a clear cut would've helped (compat could then have been added as a clearly separate subpackage, implemented in terms of coroutines). Now people coming from non-coroutine frameworks who were promised compatibility see "bad" things in asyncio (and related areas), and people lured by a promise of native Python framework see bad things too. -- Best regards, Paul mailto:pmis...@gmail.com _______________________________________________ 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
