On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 5:50 AM, Stefan Behnel <stefan_ml at behnel.de> wrote: > Yury Selivanov schrieb am 30.04.2015 um 03:30: > > 1. Terminology: > > - *native coroutine* term is used for "async def" functions. > > When I read "native", I think of native (binary) code. So "native > coroutine" sounds like it's implemented in some compiled low-level > language. That might be the case (certainly in the CPython world), but it's > not related to this PEP nor its set of examples. > > > > We should discuss how we will name new 'async def' coroutines in > > Python Documentation if the PEP is accepted. > > Well, it doesn't hurt to avoid obvious misleading terminology upfront. > I think "obvious[ly] misleading" is too strong, nobody is trying to mislead anybody, we just have different associations with the same word. Given the feedback I'd call "native coroutine" suboptimal (even though I proposed it myself) and I am now in favor of using "async function". -- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20150501/57176907/attachment.html>
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