Paul Moore added the comment:
I'm OK that the basic glossary item is now covered. I don't know about any of
the other issues Martin mentioned.
I've closed the issue as my original comment is addressed, but if Martin wants
to reopen it to address his concerns, I'm OK with him doing that.
Cheryl Sabella added the comment:
While some of the proposed changes in this issue have been applied to the
documentation under other issues, other changes have not been applied. Is it
still desirable to incorporate the other changes (such as native coroutine) or
have the existing doc
Paul Moore added the comment:
Personally, I'm OK with the wording in the 3.5.0b2 docs, as far as basic
terminology and glossary-style information goes.
I think coroutines, async, and event loops are badly under-documented in the
broader context, though - there is very little in the docs
Martin Panter added the comment:
Okay. The biggest thing that concerns me at the moment to do with the term is
that there are too many related but different, specific meanings, that I
suspect could be confusing, including:
1. Generators (and presumably also the new “async” native coroutines),
Martin Panter added the comment:
Here is a new patch:
* Clarified some recent instances of “coroutine” as “native coroutine” (term
taken from PEP 492)
* Put “coroutine” before “coroutine function” in the glossary.
* Merge “Use as coroutines” section into new coroutine compound statement
Martin Panter added the comment:
I suspect the patch is out of date due to PEP 492 and Issue 24180 (“await”
syntax for coroutines). But maybe the current glossary entry could be refined
to also mention generators.
--
nosy: +vadmium
___
Python
New submission from Paul Moore:
Although the new generator methods introduced in PEP 342 are documented, the
term coroutine is not defined anywhere. In particular, the fact that Python
coroutines work in conjunction with an event loop rather than transferring
control directly between each
