Hello everybody, I thought I had sent this mail to everybody, so here was my answer to Nathaniel, Regards,
Chris ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Christophe Bailly <chbai...@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2018 at 13:56 Subject: Re: [Python-ideas] [asyncio] Suggestion for a major PEP To: Nathaniel Smith <n...@pobox.com> Hello Nathaniel, After reading many papers, I understand that it is not as simple as I could imagine in my first thought. Sorry about that, I have learned something. Explicit vs implicit asynchronism is a complex topic. Regards, Chris On Sun, 16 Dec 2018 at 10:16, Nathaniel Smith <n...@pobox.com> wrote: > If you want this style of concurrency, you don't need to write a PEP, > just 'pip install gevent' :-) > > But unfortunately you're years too late to argue for making asyncio > work this way. This was discussed extensively at the time, and the > decision to use special syntax was made intentionally, and after > studying existing systems like gevent that made the other choice. > > This section of the trio docs explain why explicit async/await syntax > makes life easier for developers: > https://trio.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reference-core.html#checkpoints > > It's also awkward but very doable to support both sync and async mode > with a single code base: https://github.com/python-trio/unasync/ > > In fact, when doing this, the async/await syntax isn't really the hard > part – the hard part is that different libraries have very different > networking APIs. E.g., the stdlib socket API and the stdlib asyncio > API are totally different. > > -n > On Sun, Dec 16, 2018 at 12:21 AM Christophe Bailly <chbai...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > Hello, > > > > I copy paste the main idea from an article I have written: > > contextual async > > > > " > > > > Imagine you have some code written for monothread. And you want to > include your code in a multithread environment. Do you need to adapt all > your code which is what you do when you want to migrate to async code ? The > answer is no. > > > > Functionnally these constraints are not justified neither technically > > > > Do we have the tools to do this ? Yes because thanks to boost::context > we can switch context between tasks. When a task suspends, it just calls a > function (the event loop or reactor) to potentially switch to another task. > Just like threads switch contexts… > > > > Async/Await logic has introduced a symetric relation wich introduces > unnecessary contraints. We should just the same logic as thread logic. > > > > " > > > > Read the examples in the article I have developped a prototype in C++ > and everything works perfectly. > > > > My opinion is that sooner or later, it will have to switch to this logic > because chaining async/aswait is a huge contraints and does not make sense > in my opinion. > > > > Maybe I am missing something, > > > > Feel free to give me your feedback. > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Chris > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Python-ideas mailing list > > Python-ideas@python.org > > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas > > Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/ > > > > -- > Nathaniel J. Smith -- https://vorpus.org >
_______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
