RetroSearch Browse

Tue Apr 21 18:01:32 CEST 2015 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2015-April/139302.html

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
> await for?), so wouldn't it be much simpler, and more symmetric, to
> just have one keyword? I personally prefer await for that, then it is
> "await def", and "await for" (and "await with", etc.).

"await" is a verb - call for action, while "async" is an adjective
(although non-existent in plain English).  Hence "async" tells us
that the statement after it is asynchronous.

At least that's my reasoning about it ;)

Yury

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2015-April/139302.html below:

[Python-Dev] async/await PEP