On 04/28, Guido van Rossum wrote: > On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 4:55 PM, Ethan Furman <et...@stoneleaf.us> wrote: >> On 04/28, Yury Selivanov wrote: >> >> >>> This limitation will go away as soon as ``async`` and ``await`` ate >> >>> proper keywords. Or if it's decided to use a future import for this >> >>> PEP. >> >> `async` and `await` need to be proper keywords, and __future__ imports >> is how we do that (see, e.g., PEP 355 and and PEP 343) >> > > You could at least provide an explanation about how the current proposal > falls short. What code will break? There's a cost to __future__ imports > too. The current proposal is a pretty clever hack -- and we've done similar > hacks in the past (last I remember when "import ... as ..." was introduced > but we didn't want to make 'as' a keyword right away).
My apologies, I was unaware we had done psuedo-keywords before. -- ~Ethan~ _______________________________________________ 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
