2016-11-08 22:00 GMT+01:00 Guido van Rossum :
> But they could also call it before a loop is active and then call
> run_until_complete() on the thing. E.g.
>
> f = sleep1() # definition from my previous post
> asyncio.get_event_loop().run_until_complete(f)
>
> Assuming that's
On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 12:43 PM, Yury Selivanov
wrote:
>
>
> On 2016-11-08 3:29 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>
>> I think the problem is that it's hard to tell the difference between these
>> two:
>>
>> async def sleep1():
>> await asyncio.sleep(1)
>>
>> def
I think the problem is that it's hard to tell the difference between these
two:
async def sleep1():
await asyncio.sleep(1)
def sleep1():
return Task(asyncio.sleep(1))
since both may be documented as being a "coroutine" but the latter
references the loop when you calls it, while the
Martin,
> On Nov 8, 2016, at 1:39 PM, Martin Richard wrote:
>
> I fully agree about coroutines, one thing though: I often see functions
> returning awaitables documented as "coroutines", and I see that as a problem
> since it gives the assumption that it won't be
I fully agree about coroutines, one thing though: I often see functions
returning awaitables documented as "coroutines", and I see that as a
problem since it gives the assumption that it won't be executed until
processed by the loop.
For instance, asynctest can't identify them as coroutines, they
On 2016-11-08 11:07 AM, Martin Richard wrote:
- the feature is left as it is: a library author should no longer have to
deal with the loop from a coroutine/a callback, and this is how asyncio
libraries should be written.
^- this. To add to what Guido said, I think we should promote
On Tuesday, November 1, 2016 at 6:46:12 PM UTC+1, Andrew Svetlov wrote:
> The same problem is present in asyncio classes itself: Lock, Queue,
> streams could be created with global life time and they are will hang if
> used from different loop.
>
Since PR #303
> On Nov 1, 2016, at 10:46 AM, Andrew Svetlov wrote:
>
> The same problem is present in asyncio classes itself: Lock, Queue, streams
> could be created with global life time and they are will hang if used from
> different loop.
Once we fix get_event_loop we can
On Monday, October 31, 2016 at 6:27:57 PM UTC+2, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>
> It's an interesting problem. I would like to rephrase your conclusion:
> the implicit loop should only be used when the object you are creating
> has a shorter (or equal) lifetime than the loop. I would also think
>
> On Oct 31, 2016, at 2:43 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>
> Thanks! We can fix this in 3.6b4.
Awesome! I’ll reopen that PR in a couple of days.
Thank you,
Yury
On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 1:30 PM, Yury Selivanov
wrote:
> Guido,
>
> I’m with Andrew on this one.
>
And the reason is the misbehavior of get_event_loop(), right? (See below.)
> > On Oct 31, 2016, at 10:27 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> >
> > I would
Guido,
I’m with Andrew on this one.
> On Oct 31, 2016, at 10:27 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>
> I would suggest different guidelines for libraries than for
> applications: Libraries should be robust and always store their own
> loop. This is how asyncio itself works and how
Hi,
Indeed, for applications, I believe that we should rather depend on
defining the right EventLoopPolicy (or use the default one if most cases)
and call get_event_loop() when required rather than passing the loop
explicitly. Most of the time a policy is sufficient to describe how your
It's an interesting problem. I would like to rephrase your conclusion:
the implicit loop should only be used when the object you are creating
has a shorter (or equal) lifetime than the loop. I would also think
that the real problem with the code example is that it creates a
variable with global
14 matches
Mail list logo