Ian Kelly added the comment: The asyncio docs also have this note, so this is technically not a bug:
Note: In this documentation, some methods are documented as coroutines, even if they are plain Python functions returning a Future. This is intentional to have a freedom of tweaking the implementation of these functions in the future. If such a function is needed to be used in a callback-style code, wrap its result with ensure_future(). Since the intention seems to be to document something that can be awaited without specifying the implementation, I think that these functions should be documented as returning awaitables. However GvR in python-ideas said: IMO [the docs] should be very clear about the distinction between functions that return Futures and functions that return coroutines (of either kind). I think it's fine if they are fuzzy about whether the latter return a PEP 492 style coroutine (i.e. defined with async def) or a pre-PEP-492 coroutine (marked with @asyncio.coroutine), since those are almost entirely interchangeable, and the plan is to eventually make everything a PEP 492 coroutine. Source: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.python.ideas/38045/focus=38046 ---------- nosy: +ikelly _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue25675> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
