RetroSearch Browse

Wed May 6 00:37:02 CEST 2015 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2015-May/139841.html

On 5 May 2015 at 23:25, Yury Selivanov <yselivanov.ml at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Note that I don't have a problem with there being no existing
>> implementation other than asyncio. I'd just like it if we could be
>> clear over exactly what we mean when we say "the PEP is not tied to
>> asyncio".
>
> Well, "the PEP is not tied to asyncio" -- this is correct.
> *The new syntax and new protocols know nothing about asyncio*.
>
> asyncio will know about the PEP by implementing new protocols
> where required etc (but supporting these new features isn't
> in the scope of the PEP).

Thanks. That's something that may be worth explicitly noting in the
PEP (I don't recall it from when I last looked but that was a while
ago).
Paul

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2015-May/139841.html below:

[Python-Dev] PEP 492: async/await in Python; version 5