On 7 September 2016 at 04:24, Sven R. Kunze <srku...@mail.de> wrote: > Python async community wants you to write everything twice: for the sync and > async case. And don't dare to mentioned code sharing here. They will rip you > apart. ;) > > Just kidding. Of course would it be great to write code only once but Yury > want to preserve well-paid Python dev jobs in the industry because > everything here needs to be maintained twice then. ;)
Sven, this is not productive, not funny, and not welcome. Vent your frustrations with the fundamental split between synchronous and explicitly asynchronous software design elsewhere. > No really, I have absolutely no idea why you need to put that "async" in all > places where Python can detect automatically if it needs to perform an async > iteration or not. Maybe, Yury can explain. As Anthony already noted, the "async" keyword switches to the asynchronous version of the iterator protocol - you use this when your *iterator* needs to interact with the event loop, just as you do when deciding whether or not to mark a for loop as asynchronous. Regards, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
