RetroSearch Browse

Thu Apr 30 10:50:11 CEST 2015 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2015-April/139776.html

On 29 April 2015 at 20:42, Yury Selivanov <yselivanov.ml at gmail.com> wrote:
> Everybody is pulling me in a different direction :)
> Guido proposed to call them "native coroutines".  Some people
> think that "async functions" is a better name.  Greg loves
> his "cofunction" term.
>
> I'm flexible about how we name 'async def' functions.  I like
> to call them "coroutines", because that's what they are, and
> that's how asyncio calls them.  It's also convenient to use
> 'coroutine-object' to explain what is the result of calling
> a coroutine.

I'd like the object created by an 'async def' statement to be called a
'coroutine function' and the result of calling it to be called a
'coroutine'.

This is consistent with the usage of 'generator function' and
'generator' has two advantages IMO:
- they both would follow the pattern 'X function' is a function
statement that when called returns an 'X'.
- When the day comes to define generator coroutines, then it will be
clear what to call them: 'generator coroutine function' will be the
function definition and 'generator coroutine' will be the object it
creates.

Cheers,

-- 
Arnaud

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2015-April/139776.html below:

[Python-Dev] PEP 492: What is the real goal?