Greg, On 2015-04-24 4:13 AM, Greg Ewing wrote: > Guido van Rossum wrote: >> I think this is the nail in PEP 3152's coffin. > > Seems more like a small tack to me. :-) > I've addressed all the issues raised there in > earlier posts. > I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous. You haven't addressed the issues. We raise issues, saying that your PEP isn't backwards compatible and is breaking existing idioms. You say - there is a workaround for that; or that we can rewrite that and make it like that; or something else that doesn't make any sense for existing asyncio developers. Your PEP isn't backwards compatible. Period. It *will* be harder for people to get, as it *does* introduce a new calling grammar that isn't obvious for at least some people. We, asyncio developers, who write asyncio code, *don't* want to write 'cocall fut()'. I don't understand *why* I'm required to put parentheses there (besides someone just requiring me to do so, because they failed to solve some problem in backwards compatible way). You avoid confusion in one place, but you introduce it in other places. I'm sorry, but your current way of handling the discussion isn't really productive. You don't listen to arguments by Victor Stinner, Andrew Svetlov, and me. At this point, this whole PEP 3152 related discussion isn't helping anyone. Yury P.S. I'm sorry if this sounded harsh, this wasn't my intent.
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4