Re: [Python-ideas] if-statement in for-loop

In my experience it is exceptions and inconsistencies that consume 'working memory in the brain of humans'. By eliminating the distinction between list comprehensions and for loops we would be making the language simpler by eliminating an inconsistency. Furthermore, I do not believe it is valid

Re: [Python-ideas] async objects

On 4 October 2016 at 10:48, C Anthony Risinger wrote: > In Go I can spawn a new control state (goroutine) at any time against any > function. This is clear in the code. In Erlang I can spawn a new control > state (Erlang process) at any time and it's also clear. Erlang is a

Re: [Python-ideas] async objects

Yann Kaiser wrote: The way I see it, the great thing about async/await as opposed to threading is that it is explicit about when execution will "take a break" from your function or resume into it. Another thing is that async/await tasks are very lightweight compared to OS threads, so you can

Re: [Python-ideas] async objects

On Oct 3, 2016 7:09 PM, "Stephen J. Turnbull" < turnbull.stephen...@u.tsukuba.ac.jp> wrote: > > Rene Nejsum writes: > > > I believe that you should be able to code concurrent code, without > > being to explicit about it, but let the runtime handle low-level > > timing, as long as you know your

Re: [Python-ideas] async objects

Rene Nejsum writes: > I believe that you should be able to code concurrent code, without > being to explicit about it, but let the runtime handle low-level > timing, as long as you know your code will execute in the intended > order. Isn't "concurrent code whose order of execution you know"

Re: [Python-ideas] async objects

Hi Yann/ > On 03 Oct 2016, at 17:46, Yann Kaiser wrote: > > The way I see it, the great thing about async/await as opposed to threading > is that it is explicit about when execution will "take a break" from your > function or resume into it. This is made clear and

Re: [Python-ideas] if-statement in for-loop

Hi, On 11/09/16 10:36, Dominik Gresch wrote: So I asked myself if a syntax as follows would be possible: for i in range(10) if i != 5: body I've read the thread and I understand the general issues with making the condition part of the expression. However, what if this wasn't part of

Re: [Python-ideas] async objects

On 3 October 2016 at 15:52, Giampaolo Rodola' wrote: > Independently from what the proposed solution is, I think you raised a very > valid concern: the DRY principle. > Right now the stdlib has tons of client network libraries which do not > support the new async model. > As

Re: [Python-ideas] async objects

Independently from what the proposed solution is, I think you raised a very valid concern: the DRY principle. Right now the stdlib has tons of client network libraries which do not support the new async model. As such, library vendors will have to rewrite them by using the new syntax and provide