Thanks for your support, Paul. We're looking forward to your further ideas and criticisms.
On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 9:17 AM, Paul Sokolovsky <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello, > > I'm author of alternative implementation of asyncio subset for > MicroPython, and some time ago I shared by concerns and criticism on > how asyncio API makes it complicated to implement lightweight, > memory-optimized asyncio work-alike: > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/python-tulip/zfMQIUcIR-0 > > Few days ago, with my better understanding of coroutines and asyncio, > I proceeded to add some thin compatibility later to > MicroPython's uasyncio to use asyncio's methods of coroutine > scheduling (async() and Task()), and to my surprise, founds that > there's now BaseEventLoop.create_task(coro) method > ( > https://docs.python.org/3/library/asyncio-eventloop.html#asyncio.BaseEventLoop.create_task > ) > to schedule them in obvious and direct method directly against an > event loop. > > > Thank you very much for this addition! It being added means that > uasyncio now can be compatible on basic level with asyncio, without > suffering additional memory or runtime overheads, so thanks helping > alternative asyncio implementations which may different architecture > and are resource-constrained (uasyncio for example doesn't have Future > class, and works directly with native Python types of routines (i.e. > functions) and coroutines (i.e. generators), with heaps size of > reference MicroPython implementation of 128Kb). > > There're more things in asyncio API which make life complicated for us > (to be exact, 1 thing which is unavoidably limiting, the rest are just > some improvement ideas), I hope to share them some time later, and hope > for positive and productive attention to them too. > > > -- > Best regards, > Paul mailto:[email protected] > -- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)
