On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 9:24 PM, Sven R. Kunze <srku...@mail.de> wrote: [...] > 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.
I'm sure he would explain, but it seems I was first ;) [last-minute edit: no, Nick was first, but this is a slightly different angle]. First, the "async" gets inherited from PEP 492, so this has actually already been decided on. While not strictly necessary for a syntax for "async for", it makes it more explicit what happens under the hood -- that __a*__ methods are called and awaited, instead of simply calling __iter__/__next__ etc. as in regular loops/comprehensions. Not a lot to debate, I guess. No surprises here, just implementation work. -- Koos > Cheers, > Sven > > _______________________________________________ > Python-ideas mailing list > Python-ideas@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas > Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/ -- + Koos Zevenhoven + http://twitter.com/k7hoven + _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
