Hello,
On Tue, 28 Apr 2015 20:59:18 +0100
Mark Shannon wrote:
>
>
> On 28/04/15 20:24, Paul Sokolovsky wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> [snip]
>
> > Based on all this passage, my guess is that you miss difference
> > between C and Python functions.
> This is rather patronising, almost to the point of
Hello,
On Mon, 27 Apr 2015 08:48:49 +0100
Mark Shannon wrote:
>
>
> On 27/04/15 00:13, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > But new syntax is the whole point of the PEP. I want to be able to
> > *syntactically* tell where the suspension points are in coroutines.
> Doesn't "yield from" already do that?
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 11:51 AM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
> Mark Shannon schrieb am 27.04.2015 um 09:48:
> > On 27/04/15 00:13, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> >> Currently this means looking for yield [from]; PEP 492 just adds looking
> >> for await and async [for|with]. Making await() a function defeats
On 28/04/15 20:24, Paul Sokolovsky wrote:
Hello,
[snip]
Based on all this passage, my guess is that you miss difference
between C and Python functions.
This is rather patronising, almost to the point of being insulting.
Please keep the debate civil.
[snip]
Cheers,
Mark.
_
Mark Shannon schrieb am 27.04.2015 um 09:48:
> On 27/04/15 00:13, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>> Currently this means looking for yield [from]; PEP 492 just adds looking
>> for await and async [for|with]. Making await() a function defeats the
>> purpose because now aliasing can hide its presence, and w
On 4/26/2015 4:32 PM, Paul Sokolovsky wrote:
Then, is the only logic for proposing __aenter__ is to reinsure against
a situation that someone starts to write async context manager, forgets
that they write async context manager, and make an __enter__ method
there. Then your implementation will ann
Hello,
On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 20:39:55 -0400
Yury Selivanov wrote:
[]
> > As for 3rd point, I'd like to remind that CPython is only one Python
> > implementation. And with my MicroPython hat on, I'd like to know if
> > (some of) these new features are "bloat" or "worthy" for the space
> > constrai
Hello,
On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 16:13:43 -0700
Guido van Rossum wrote:
> But new syntax is the whole point of the PEP. I want to be able to
> *syntactically* tell where the suspension points are in coroutines.
> Currently this means looking for yield [from]; PEP 492 just adds
> looking for await and
Hello,
On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 19:45:30 -0400
Yury Selivanov wrote:
[]
> > Then, is the only logic for proposing __aenter__ is to reinsure
> > against a situation that someone starts to write async context
> > manager, forgets that they write async context manager, and make an
> > __enter__ method
Hello,
On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 18:49:43 -0400
Yury Selivanov wrote:
[]
> >> >- it would look confusing
> > Sorry, "async def __enter__" doesn't look more confusing than
> > "__aenter__" (vs "__enter__").
>
> I'll update the PEP.
>
> The argument shouldn't be that it's confusing, the argument
> is
Hello,
On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 16:40:03 -0400
Yury Selivanov wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> On 2015-04-26 4:21 PM, Mark Shannon wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I was looking at PEP 492 and it seems to me that no new syntax is
> > required.
>
> Mark, all your points are explained in the PEP in a great detail:
Inde
On 26/04/15 23:24, Nick Coghlan wrote:
On 27 Apr 2015 07:50, "Mark Shannon" mailto:m...@hotpy.org>> wrote:
> On 26/04/15 21:40, Yury Selivanov wrote:
>>
>> But it's hard. Iterating through something asynchronously? Write a
>> 'while True' loop. Instead of 1 line you now have 5 or 6. Wa
On 27/04/15 00:13, Guido van Rossum wrote:
But new syntax is the whole point of the PEP. I want to be able to
*syntactically* tell where the suspension points are in coroutines.
Doesn't "yield from" already do that?
Currently this means looking for yield [from]; PEP 492 just adds looking
for
Paul,
On 2015-04-26 8:17 PM, Paul Sokolovsky wrote:
Hello,
On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 19:45:30 -0400
Yury Selivanov wrote:
[]
Then, is the only logic for proposing __aenter__ is to reinsure
against a situation that someone starts to write async context
manager, forgets that they write async contex
Paul,
On 2015-04-26 7:32 PM, Paul Sokolovsky wrote:
Hello,
On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 18:49:43 -0400
Yury Selivanov wrote:
[]
- it would look confusing
Sorry, "async def __enter__" doesn't look more confusing than
"__aenter__" (vs "__enter__").
I'll update the PEP.
The argument shouldn't be tha
But new syntax is the whole point of the PEP. I want to be able to
*syntactically* tell where the suspension points are in coroutines.
Currently this means looking for yield [from]; PEP 492 just adds looking
for await and async [for|with]. Making await() a function defeats the
purpose because now a
Paul,
On 2015-04-26 6:25 PM, Paul Sokolovsky wrote:
Ok, so here're 3 points this link gives, with my concerns/questions:
>An alternative idea about new asynchronous iterators and context
>managers was to reuse existing magic methods, by adding an async
>keyword to their declarations:
>[But:]
>
On 27 Apr 2015 07:50, "Mark Shannon" wrote:
> On 26/04/15 21:40, Yury Selivanov wrote:
>>
>> But it's hard. Iterating through something asynchronously? Write a
>> 'while True' loop. Instead of 1 line you now have 5 or 6. Want to
>> commit your database transaction? Instead of 'async with' you
Brett,
On 2015-04-26 6:09 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
How is it a burden for people porting Python 2 code? Because they won't
get to name anything 'async' just like anyone supporting older Python 3
versions? Otherwise I don't see how it is of any consequence to people
maintaining 2/3 code as it wi
On 2015-04-26 5:48 PM, Mark Shannon wrote:
On 26/04/15 21:40, Yury Selivanov wrote:
Hi Mark,
On 2015-04-26 4:21 PM, Mark Shannon wrote:
Hi,
I was looking at PEP 492 and it seems to me that no new syntax is
required.
Mark, all your points are explained in the PEP in a great detail:
I did
On Sun, Apr 26, 2015, 17:49 Mark Shannon wrote:
On 26/04/15 21:40, Yury Selivanov wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> On 2015-04-26 4:21 PM, Mark Shannon wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I was looking at PEP 492 and it seems to me that no new syntax is
>> required.
>
> Mark, all your points are explained in the PEP in a g
On 26/04/15 21:40, Yury Selivanov wrote:
Hi Mark,
On 2015-04-26 4:21 PM, Mark Shannon wrote:
Hi,
I was looking at PEP 492 and it seems to me that no new syntax is
required.
Mark, all your points are explained in the PEP in a great detail:
I did read the PEP. I do think that clarifying the
Hi Mark,
On 2015-04-26 4:21 PM, Mark Shannon wrote:
Hi,
I was looking at PEP 492 and it seems to me that no new syntax is
required.
Mark, all your points are explained in the PEP in a great detail:
Looking at the code, it does four things; all of which, or a
functional equivalent, could
How do you implement "async for"?
On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 11:21 PM, Mark Shannon wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I was looking at PEP 492 and it seems to me that no new syntax is required.
>
> Looking at the code, it does four things; all of which, or a functional
> equivalent, could be done with no new syntax
Hi,
I was looking at PEP 492 and it seems to me that no new syntax is required.
Looking at the code, it does four things; all of which, or a functional
equivalent, could be done with no new syntax.
1. Make a normal function into a generator or coroutine. This can be
done with a decorator.
2. S
25 matches
Mail list logo
