RetroSearch Browse

Fri Jun 26 20:06:04 CEST 2015 · http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2015-June/140610.html

On 06/26/2015 10:31 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> Apologies if this is a really REALLY dumb question, but... How hard
> would it be to then dispense with the await keyword, and simply
> _always_  behave that way? Something like:
>
> def data_from_socket():
>      # Other tasks may run while we wait for data
>      # The socket.read() function has yield points in it
>      data = socket.read(1024, 1)
>      return transmogrify(data)
>
> def respond_to_socket():
>      while True:
>          data = data_from_socket()
>          # We can pretend that socket writes happen instantly,
>          # but if ever we can't write, it'll let other tasks wait while
>          # we're blocked on it.
>          socket.write("Got it, next please!")
>
> Do these functions really need to be aware that there are yield points
> in what they're calling?

I think "yield points" is a concept that needs to be spelled out a bit 
clearer in the PEP 492.

It seems that those points are defined by other means outside of a function 
defined with "async def".  From the PEP...

    * It is a SyntaxError to have yield or yield from expressions
      in an async function.

So somewhere in an async function, it needs to "await something" with a 
yield in it that isn't an async function.

This seems to be a bit counter intuitive to me.  Or am I missing something?

Regards,
    Ron

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2015-June/140610.html below:

[Python-Dev] Importance of "async" keyword