Hi Wolfgang,
On 2015-04-23 8:27 AM, Wolfgang Langner wrote:
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 12:35 PM, Paul Sokolovsky <pmis...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello,
On Thu, 23 Apr 2015 12:18:51 +0300
Andrew Svetlov <andrew.svet...@gmail.com> wrote:
[]
3.
async with and async for
Bead idea, we clutter the language even more and it is one more
thing every newbie could do wrong.
for x in y:
result = await f()
is enough, every 'async' framework lived without it over years.
async for i in iterable:
pass
is not equal for
for fut in iterable:
i = yield from fut
But people who used Twisted all their life don't know that! They just
know that "async for" is not needed and bad.
I don't think it is bad nor not needed, but the syntax is not beautiful and
for the 90% not doing async stuff irritating and one more thing to learn
and do right/wrong.
There is no way to do things wrong in PEP 492. An object
either has __aiter__ or it will be rejected by async for.
An object either has __aenter__ or it will be rejected by
async with.
transaction = yield from connection.transaction()
try:
...
except:
yield from transaction.rollback()
else:
yield from transaction.commit()
is certainly more irritating than
async with connection.transcation():
...
I had also a need for async loop. But there are other solutions like
channels,
not needing a new syntax.
Also possible a function returning futures and yield in the loop with a
sentinel.
All this goes the road down to a producer consumer pattern. Nothing more.
I know I'm a bad guy to make such comments, too bad there's a bit of
truth in them, or everyone would just call me an a%$&ole right away.
Generally, I already provided feedback (on asyncio list) that asyncio
is based not on native Python concepts like a coroutine, but on
foreign concurrency concepts like callback or Future, and a coroutine
is fitted as a second-class citizen on top of that. I understand why
that was done - to not leave out all those twisteds from a shiny new
world of asyncio, but sometimes one may wonder if having a clear cut
would've helped (compat could then have been added as a clearly separate
subpackage, implemented in terms of coroutines). Now people coming from
non-coroutine frameworks who were promised compatibility see "bad"
things in asyncio (and related areas), and people lured by a promise of
native Python framework see bad things too.
This has nothing to do with people using twisted or other async frameworks
like tornado.
I think a coroutine should be first class. But all this should be done in a
way a beginner
can handle and not design this stuff for experts only.
I think that most of async frameworks out there are for
experts only. Precisely because of 'yield from', 'yield',
inlineCallbacks, '@coroutine', channels and other stuff.
PEP 492 will make it all easier. And Twisted can use
its features too.
If we do this we
scare away new people.
It doesn't scare away anyone. async/await were the most
awaited features in dart and javascript. One of the most
popular features in c#.
Yury
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
