Hi,
It looks like the discussion about the execution context became
extremely hard to follow. There are many opinions on how the spec for
generators should look like. What seems to be "natural"
behaviour/example to one, seems to be completely unreasonable to other
people. Recent emails from Gui
On 16 October 2017 at 11:33, Yury Selivanov wrote:
> Stage 2. When Python 3.7 is out, we'll see how people use execution
> contexts for async code and collect feedback. If we recognize that
> Python users want execution contexts for generators/asynchronous
> generators, we'll make a new PEP to a
On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 6:33 PM, Yury Selivanov wrote:
> Hi,
>
> It looks like the discussion about the execution context became
> extremely hard to follow. There are many opinions on how the spec for
> generators should look like. What seems to be "natural"
> behaviour/example to one, seems to
On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 8:12 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On 16 October 2017 at 11:33, Yury Selivanov
> wrote:
>
>> Stage 2. When Python 3.7 is out, we'll see how people use execution
>> contexts for async code and collect feedback. If we recognize that
>> Python users want execution contexts for
On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 8:17 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 6:33 PM, Yury Selivanov
> wrote:
> > Stage 1. A new execution context PEP to solve the problem *just for
> > async code*. The PEP will target Python 3.7 and completely ignore
> > synchronous generators and asynchr
On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 10:10 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 8:17 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 6:33 PM, Yury Selivanov
>> wrote:
>> > Stage 1. A new execution context PEP to solve the problem *just for
>> > async code*. The PEP will target Pyth
