On Apr 21, 2015, at 3:23 AM, Martin Teichmann wrote:
>
> Hi Yury, Hi List,
>
> I do certainly like the idea of PEP 492, just some small comments:
>
> why do we need two keywords? To me it is not necessarily intuitive
> when to use async and when to use await (why is it async for and not
> await
Hi Martin,
On 2015-04-21 4:23 AM, Martin Teichmann wrote:
Hi Yury, Hi List,
I do certainly like the idea of PEP 492, just some small comments:
Thank you!
why do we need two keywords? To me it is not necessarily intuitive
when to use async and when to use await (why is it async for and not
a
Hi Yury, Hi List,
I do certainly like the idea of PEP 492, just some small comments:
why do we need two keywords? To me it is not necessarily intuitive
when to use async and when to use await (why is it async for and not
await for?), so wouldn't it be much simpler, and more symmetric, to
just hav
Hello,
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 15:12:50 -0400
Yury Selivanov wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I've just posted a new PEP about adding async/await to python-ideas.
> Maybe I should have posted it here instead..
For reference, python-ideas archive link is
https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-ideas/2015-April
Hello,
I've just posted a new PEP about adding async/await to python-ideas.
Maybe I should have posted it here instead..
Anyways, please take a look.
Thanks,
Yury
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listin
