RetroSearch Browse

Fri Apr 24 04:45:05 CEST 2015 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2015-April/139483.html

Yury Selivanov writes:

 > To my eye 'async def name()', 'async with', 'async for' look
 > better than 'def async name()', 'with async' and 'for async'.
 > But that's highly subjective.

I'm with Barry on this one as far as looks go.  (But count that as a
+0, since I'm just a literary critic, I don't use coroutines in anger
at present.)

 > I also read "for async item in iter:" as "I'm iterating iter
 > with async item".

I thought that was precisely the intended semantics: item is available
asynchronously.

Again, count as a +0.  FWIW, etc.

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2015-April/139483.html below:

[Python-Dev] async/await in Python; v2