Message242633
| Author | gvanrossum |
|---|---|
| Recipients | NeilGirdhar, Rosuav, belopolsky, ethan.furman, gvanrossum, ncoghlan, python-dev, r.david.murray, rhettinger, schlamar, scoder, serhiy.storchaka, vstinner |
| Date | 2015-05-06.00:27:42 |
| SpamBayes Score | -1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified | Yes |
| Message-id | <CAP7+vJJpxa=NH07TmDNA4j7aS4z__-zggcoMonhEoCcPTrMpwA@mail.gmail.com> |
| In-reply-to | <1430871519.82.0.866015043761.issue22906@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| Content | |
|---|---|
Well that would break a lot of code... On May 5, 2015 5:18 PM, "STINNER Victor" <report@bugs.python.org> wrote: > > STINNER Victor added the comment: > > Would it be possible to push the first part of the implementation (without > __future__) just to unblock the implementation of the PEP 492 (issue > #24017: async/await)? > > Later push the second part for __future__. > > ---------- > > _______________________________________ > Python tracker <report@bugs.python.org> > <http://bugs.python.org/issue22906> > _______________________________________ > |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2015-05-06 00:27:42 | gvanrossum | set | recipients: + gvanrossum, rhettinger, ncoghlan, belopolsky, scoder, vstinner, r.david.murray, ethan.furman, python-dev, schlamar, Rosuav, serhiy.storchaka, NeilGirdhar |
| 2015-05-06 00:27:42 | gvanrossum | link | issue22906 messages |
| 2015-05-06 00:27:42 | gvanrossum | create | |