On 2015-04-23 18:51, Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Apr 21, 2015, at 01:26 PM, Yury Selivanov wrote:
The updated version of the PEP should be available shortly at
https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0492 and is also pasted in this email.
There's a lot to like about PEP 492. I only want to mildly bikeshed a bit on
the proposed new syntax.
Why "async def" and not "def async"?
My concern is about existing tools that already know that "def" as the first
non-whitespace on the line starts a function/method definition. Think of a
regexp in an IDE that searches backwards from the current line to find the
function its defined on. Sure, tools can be updated but it is it *necessary*
to choose a syntax that breaks tools?
def async useful():
seems okay to me.
Probably the biggest impact on the PEP would be symmetry with asynchronous
with and for. What about:
with async lock:
and
for async data in cursor:
That would also preserve at least some behavior of existing tools.
Anyway, since the PEP doesn't explicitly describe this as an alternative, I
want to bring it up.
(I have mild concerns about __a*__ magic methods, since I think they'll be
harder to visually separate, but here the PEP does describe the __async_*__
alternatives.)
On the other hand, existing tools might be expecting "def" and "for" to
be followed by a name.
_______________________________________________
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
