Message260327
| Author |
yselivanov |
| Recipients |
André Caron, gvanrossum, vstinner, yselivanov |
| Date |
2016年02月15日.18:22:42 |
| SpamBayes Score |
-1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified |
Yes |
| Message-id |
<1455560563.17.0.325907000589.issue26357@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content |
TBH I never ever needed to do membership tests on (done, failed) result of asyncio.wait. If you need to do such tests - just wrap your coroutines into tasks manually. I honestly don't understand what's the problem and why we need to change anything in asyncio or in Python. There're tons of code on asyncio now, and this is only a second time someone wants to "fix" await.
Fixing #25887 allows us to enable multiple awaits on coroutines later, but I wouldn't rush that in 3.5 or 3.6.
Restricting asyncio.wait to accept only futures will also cause a lot of pain. I'd just fix the docs with an explanation of this problem and with a snippet of code showing how to do membership tests if needed. Alternatively, we can add a wrapper for asyncio.wait (wait_futures?), that will only accept futures/tasks. |
|
History
|
|---|
| Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
| 2016年02月15日 18:22:43 | yselivanov | set | recipients:
+ yselivanov, gvanrossum, vstinner, André Caron |
| 2016年02月15日 18:22:43 | yselivanov | set | messageid: <1455560563.17.0.325907000589.issue26357@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2016年02月15日 18:22:43 | yselivanov | link | issue26357 messages |
| 2016年02月15日 18:22:42 | yselivanov | create |
|