On 2016-10-19 6:07 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
I missed that you propose phasing this in, but it doesn't really alter much, I think the current behaviour is valuable and common, and I'm -1 on breaking it. It's just too much of a fundamental change to how loops and iterators interact for me to be comfortable with it - particularly as it's only needed for a very specific use case (none of my programs ever use async - why should I have to rewrite my loops with a clumsy extra call just to cater for a problem that only occurs in async code?)
If I understand Nathaniel's proposal, fixing 'async for' isn't the only motivation. Moreover, async generators aren't that different from sync generators in terms of finalization.
Yury _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
