On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 5:57 PM, Raymond Hettinger < raymond.hettin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Of course, it makes sense that anything not specific to asyncio should go > outside of asyncio. > > What I'm more concerned about is what the other places actually are. > Rather than putting async variants of everything sprinkled all over the > standard library, I suggest collecting them all together, perhaps in a new > asynctools module. > That's a tough design choice. I think neither extreme is particularly attractive -- having everything in an asynctools package might also bundle together thing that are entirely unrelated. In the extreme it would be like proposing that all metaclasses should go in a new "metaclasstools" package. I think we did a reasonable job with ABCs: core support goes in abc.py, support for collections ABCs goes into the collections package (in a submodule), and other packages and modules sometimes define ABCs for their own users. Also, in some cases I expect we'll have to create a whole new module instead of updating some ancient piece of code with newfangled async variants to its outdated APIs. -- --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
