Message245529
| Author | yselivanov |
|---|---|
| Recipients | Ben.Darnell, Yury.Selivanov, asvetlov, gvanrossum, martin.panter, ncoghlan, scoder, vstinner, yselivanov |
| Date | 2015-06-19.22:04:05 |
| SpamBayes Score | -1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified | Yes |
| Message-id | <1434751446.19.0.0401880166153.issue24400@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content | |
|---|---|
Actually, I'm not sure that we should use 'cr_*' prefix instead of 'gi_*' for coroutines. Coroutines reusing generators machinery is a two-fold thing: on the one hand it makes the implementation simpler; on the other -- __await__ must return an *iterator*. If you want to push values into __await__, it must return a *generator*. Essentially, as Guido said in one of his emails, we should see PEP 492 as a refinement of 'yield from' and existing generator-based coroutines. I love the idea of separating types for coroutines and generators, but I'm not so sure about 'cr_*' prefix. Nick, Guido, what do you think about this? |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2015-06-19 22:04:06 | yselivanov | set | recipients: + yselivanov, gvanrossum, ncoghlan, scoder, vstinner, asvetlov, Yury.Selivanov, Ben.Darnell, martin.panter |
| 2015-06-19 22:04:06 | yselivanov | set | messageid: <1434751446.19.0.0401880166153.issue24400@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2015-06-19 22:04:06 | yselivanov | link | issue24400 messages |
| 2015-06-19 22:04:05 | yselivanov | create | |