[Python-Dev] PEP 492: async/await in Python; version 4
Yury Selivanov
yselivanov.ml at gmail.com
Fri May 1 21:24:36 CEST 2015
More information about the Python-Dev mailing list
Fri May 1 21:24:36 CEST 2015
- Previous message (by thread): [Python-Dev] PEP 492: async/await in Python; version 4
- Next message (by thread): [Python-Dev] PEP 492: async/await in Python; version 4
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On 2015-05-01 3:19 PM, Ethan Furman wrote: >> Sure, but the difference is that one would have called __aiter__() first >> >and the other __iter__(). Normally, either of the two would not exist, so >> >using the wrong loop on an object will just fail. However, after we passed >> >that barrier, we already know that the object that was returned is supposed >> >to obey to the expected protocol, so it doesn't matter whether we call >> >__next__() or name it __anext__(), except that the second requires us to >> >duplicate an existing protocol. > If we must have __aiter__, then we may as well also have __anext__; besides > being more consistent, it also allows an object to be both a normol iterator > and an asynch iterator. And this is a good point too. Thanks, Yury
- Previous message (by thread): [Python-Dev] PEP 492: async/await in Python; version 4
- Next message (by thread): [Python-Dev] PEP 492: async/await in Python; version 4
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Python-Dev mailing list