It is spelled "Raymond Luxury-Yacht", but it's pronounced "Throatwobbler Mangrove". :-)
I am actually fine with calling a function defined with "async def ..." an async function, just as we call a function containing "yield" a generator function. However I prefer to still use "coroutine" to describe the concept implemented by async functions. *Some* generator functions also implement coroutines; however I would like to start a movement where eventually we'll always be using async functions when coroutines are called for, dedicating generators once again to their pre-PEP-342 role of a particularly efficient way to implement iterators. Note that I'm glossing over the distinction between yield and yield-from here; both can be used to implement the coroutine pattern, but the latter has some advantages when the pattern is used to support an event loop: most importantly, when using yield-from-style coroutines, a coroutine can use return to pass a value directly to the stack frame that is waiting for its result. Prior to PEP 380 (yield from), the trampoline would have to be involved in this step, and there was no standard convention for how to communicate the final result to the trampoline; I've seen "returnValue(x)" (Twisted inlineCallbacks), "raise ReturnValue(x)" (Google App Engine NDB), "yield Return(x)" (Monocle) and I believe I've seen plain "yield x" too (the latter two being abominations in my mind, since it's unclear whether the generator is resumed after s value-returning yield). While yield-from was an improvement over plain yield, await is an improvement over yield-from. As with most changes to Python (as well as natural evolution), an improvement often leads the way to another improvement -- one that wasn't obvious before. And that's fine. If I had laid awake worrying about the best way to spell async functions while designing asyncio, PEP 3156 probably still wouldn't have been finished today. On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 12:40 PM, Antoine Pitrou <solip...@pitrou.net> wrote: > On Thu, 30 Apr 2015 12:32:02 -0700 > Guido van Rossum <gu...@python.org> wrote: > > > > No, this is the name we've been using since PEP 342 and it's still the > same > > concept. > > The fact that all syntax uses the word "async" and not "coro" or > "coroutine" hints that it should really *not* be called a coroutine > (much less a "native coroutine", which both silly and a lie). > > Why not "async function"? > > Regards > > Antoine. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/guido%40python.org > -- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)
_______________________________________________ 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
