On 06.09.2016 20:45, Koos Zevenhoven wrote:
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.
Of course, I would do the same. I value consistency a lot (but the issue
here remains). :)
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/
