On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 at 00:26, Greg Ewing
wrote:
> Gustavo Carneiro wrote:
> > 1. If you don't yield in the for loop body, then you are blocking the
> > main loop for 1 second;
> >
> > 2. If you yield in every iteration, you solved the task switch latency
> > problem, but you make the entire progr
> On 15 Jun 2019, at 10:55, Gustavo Carneiro wrote:
>
>
> Perhaps. But using threads is more complicated. You have to worry about the
> integrity of your data in the face of concurrent threads. And if inside your
> task you sometimes need to call async coroutine code, again you need to b
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019, 13:49 Brett Cannon wrote:
> I think the logic breaks down with multiple inheritance. If you make C(A, B),
> then you can say C > A and C > B, but then you can't say A > B or A < B which
> breaks sorting.
The logic is fine. Classes can be considered as containers of their
i
I don't actually know how viable this proposal is, but given that it's
being debated at some length, I'd like to put in my opinion that *if*
we're going to define an operator that's (roughly) synonymous with
issubclass(), it should be '<:', which is used in other languages (e.g.
Scala) and notatio
Despite my concerns over code for an implementation on my previous e-mail,
it turns out that simply iterating in an `async for` loop won't yield
to the asyncio-loop. An explicit "await" inside the async-generator
is needed for that.
That makes factoring-out the code presented in the first e-mail
i
