On 29 April 2015 at 20:42, Yury Selivanov <yselivanov...@gmail.com> wrote: > Everybody is pulling me in a different direction :) > Guido proposed to call them "native coroutines". Some people > think that "async functions" is a better name. Greg loves > his "cofunction" term. > > I'm flexible about how we name 'async def' functions. I like > to call them "coroutines", because that's what they are, and > that's how asyncio calls them. It's also convenient to use > 'coroutine-object' to explain what is the result of calling > a coroutine.
I'd like the object created by an 'async def' statement to be called a 'coroutine function' and the result of calling it to be called a 'coroutine'. This is consistent with the usage of 'generator function' and 'generator' has two advantages IMO: - they both would follow the pattern 'X function' is a function statement that when called returns an 'X'. - When the day comes to define generator coroutines, then it will be clear what to call them: 'generator coroutine function' will be the function definition and 'generator coroutine' will be the object it creates. Cheers, -- Arnaud _______________________________________________ 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
