On other hand having builtin for making toy examples in interactive mode looks very redundant.
On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 10:38 PM Ivan Levkivskyi <levkivs...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > async/await syntax is a very nice recent feature, but there is something > that I miss for coroutines defined with async def, as compared to > generators. Coroutines represent an interesting mental model that goes > beyond only asynchronous IO, so that I play with them in REPL often. But > there is no built-in function to actually run a coroutine, so that > typically I use something like: > > >>> def run(coro): > ... try: > ... coro.send(None) > ... except StopIteration as e: > ... return e.value > > >>> async def f(): > ... return 42 > > >>> run(f()) > 42 > > There is a simple yet useful function for interactive play with generators > - ``next``, but not for coroutines. There is an option to do: > > >>> import asyncio > >>> loop = asyncio.get_event_loop() > >>> loop.run_until_complete(f()) > 42 > > But this feels a bit redundant for an interactive play. I would propose to > add something like an above described ``run`` function to built-ins. > > Yes, I know, there is a very high bar for adding a built-in function, but > I believe such a function will help to promote async/await to a wider > community (especially to novices). > > -- > Ivan > > > _______________________________________________ > Python-ideas mailing list > Python-ideas@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas > Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/ -- Thanks, Andrew Svetlov
_______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
