On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 3:38 PM, Yarko Tymciurak <yark...@gmail.com> wrote:
> To be a well-behaved (capable of effective cooperation) task in such a > system, you should guard against getting embroiled in potentially blocking > I/O tasks whose latency you are not able to control (within facilities > available in a cooperative multitasking context). The raises a couple of > questions: to be well-behaved, simple control flow is desireable (i.e. not > nested layers of yields, except perhaps for a pipeline case); and > "read/write" control from memory space w/in the process (since external I/O > is generally not for async) begs the question: what for? Eliminate > globals, encapsulate and limit access as needed through usual programming > methods. > Before anyone takes this paragraph too seriously, there seem to be a bunch of misunderstandings underlying this paragraph. - *All* blocking I/O is wrong in an async task, regardless of whether you can control its latency. (The only safe way to do I/O is using a primitive that works with `await`.) - There's nothing wrong with `yield` itself. (You shouldn't do I/O in a generator used in an async task -- but that's just due to the general ban on I/O.) - Using async tasks don't make globals more risky than regular code (in fact they are safer here than in traditional multi-threaded code). - What on earth is "read/write" control from memory space w/in the process? -- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)
_______________________________________________ Async-sig mailing list Async-sig@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/async-sig Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
