On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 5:50 AM, Stefan Behnel <stefan...@behnel.de> wrote:
> Yury Selivanov schrieb am 30.04.2015 um 03:30: > > 1. Terminology: > > - *native coroutine* term is used for "async def" functions. > > When I read "native", I think of native (binary) code. So "native > coroutine" sounds like it's implemented in some compiled low-level > language. That might be the case (certainly in the CPython world), but it's > not related to this PEP nor its set of examples. > > > > We should discuss how we will name new 'async def' coroutines in > > Python Documentation if the PEP is accepted. > > Well, it doesn't hurt to avoid obvious misleading terminology upfront. > I think "obvious[ly] misleading" is too strong, nobody is trying to mislead anybody, we just have different associations with the same word. Given the feedback I'd call "native coroutine" suboptimal (even though I proposed it myself) and I am now in favor of using "async function". -- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)
_______________________________________________ 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
