On 04/24, Yury Selivanov wrote: > On 2015-04-24 1:03 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>> Ditto for `__aiter__` and `__anext__`. I guess this means that the async >> equivalent to obtaining an iterator through `it = iter(xs)` followed by >> `for x over it` will have to look like `ait = await aiter(xs)` followed by >> `for x over ait`, where an iterator is required to have an `__aiter__` >> method that's an async function and returns self immediately. But what if >> you left out the `await` from the first call? I.e. can this work? >> ``` >> ait = aiter(xs) >> async for x in ait: >> print(x) > > With the current semantics that PEP 492 proposes, "await" > for "aiter()" is mandatory. > > You have to write > > ait = await aiter(xs) > async for x in ait: > print(c) As a new user to asyncio and this type of programming in general, 'await aiter' feels terribly redundant. -- ~Ethan~ _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
