Yury Selivanov <yseliva...@gmail.com> added the comment:
[victor] > Why does it not make sense to pass the loop to sleep? "it makes no sense > anymore" something changes? [andrew] `loop` argument passed to sleep should be always the same as returned from `get_running_loop()`. What Andrew said. Basically, it wasn't *ever* possible to pass a loop to sleep() that would be different from the loop that would run it, because sleep() is a *coroutine*. In asyncio some APIs are functions and some are coroutines. * asyncio.gather(), for example, is a function. You can call it from top-level code (and pass an event loop to it) or from a coroutine. * asyncio.sleep(), wait(), and wait_for() are *coroutines*; they can only be called from other coroutines or if you wrap them into a Task; in all cases, *loop* is always 100% defined for them. Passing the loop isn't even a viable micro-optimization, it's just pointless. This extra argument just adds to the confusion and promotes bad patterns, so we want to eventually remove it. ---------- resolution: -> fixed stage: patch review -> resolved status: open -> closed _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue34728> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
