Message244261
| Author |
scoder |
| Recipients |
asvetlov, gvanrossum, ncoghlan, python-dev, scoder, vstinner, yselivanov |
| Date |
2015年05月28日.04:18:30 |
| SpamBayes Score |
-1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified |
Yes |
| Message-id |
<55669715.5050207@behnel.de> |
| In-reply-to |
<1432785281.63.0.593517313764.issue24017@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| Content |
> It *is* correct, see PEP 492. Awaitable is either a coroutine *or* an object with an __await__ method.
"coroutine", yes. But "Coroutine"? Shouldn't the Coroutine ABC then require
"__await__" to be implemented? Maybe even by inheriting from Awaitable?
> Just implement tp_await/__await__ for coroutine-like objects coming from C-API or Cython.
Sure, that's how it's done. (Specifically, Coroutine is not an
Iterable/Iterator, but its __await__() returns a thin Iterator that simply
calls into the Generator code. A bit annoying and slowish, but that's what
it takes.)
I was just wondering how Cython should compile Python code that makes use
of this decorator. The Coroutine and Generator types are separated in
Cython now, and I think that's actually the right thing to do. This
types.coroutine() decorator and special casing in CPython's code base gets
a bit in the way here.
> In general, iteration protocol is still the foundation for Future-like objects
That's not really reflected in the ABCs, is it? |
|