Is this what syncer does with a sync() function? Why isn't this a built-in?
https://github.com/miyakogi/syncer On Wednesday, March 6, 2019, Nathaniel Smith <n...@pobox.com> wrote: > Defining a single polymorphic function is easy at the library level. > For example, with asyncio: > > ---- > > def maybe_async(fn): > @functools.wraps(fn) > def wrapper(*args, **kwargs): > coro = fn(*args, **kwargs) > if asyncio.get_running_loop() is not None: > return coro > else: > return await coro > > @maybe_async > async def my_func(...): > ... use asyncio freely in here ... > > ---- > > You can't do it at the language level though (e.g. with your proposed > 'polymorph' keyword), because the language doesn't know whether an > event loop is running or not. > > Extending this from a single function to a whole library API is > substantially more complex, because you have to wrap every function > and method, deal with __iter__ versus __aiter__, etc. > > -n > > On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 8:02 PM Jorropo . <jorropo....@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I was doing some async networking and I wondered, why I have to use 2 > different api for making the same things in async or sync regime. > > Even if we make 2 perfectly identical api (except function will be sync > and async), it will still 2 different code). > > > > So I first thinked to allow await in syncronous function but that create > some problems (ex: an async function calling async.create_task) so if we > allow that we have to asume to allways be in async regime (like js). > > > > Or we can differentiate async function wich can be awaited in syncronous > regime, maybe with a new keyword (here I will use polymorph due to a lack > of imagination but I find that one too long) ? > > > > So a polymorph function can be awaited in a syncronous function, and a > polymorph function can only await polymorph functions. > > > > Polymorph function work exacly like async function BUT they assure of > the ability to execute syncronously. > > And in a syncronous regime if an await need to wait (like async.sleep or > network operation), just wait (like the equivalent of this function in > syncronous way). > > > > So why made that ? > > To provide the same api for async and sync regime when its possible, > example http api. > > This allow to code less librairy. > > Syncronous users can just use the librairy like any other sync lib (with > the keyword await for executing but, personally, I think that is worth). > > And asyncronous users can run multiples tasks using the same lib. > > Moving from a regime to an other is simpler, source code size is reduced > (doesn't need to create 2 api for the same lib), gain of time for the same > reason. > > > > Also why it need to await in syncronous function, why not just execute > polymorph function like any sync function while called in a sync function ? > > Because we need to create runnable objects for async.run, ... > > > > So I would have your though about that, what can be improved, a better > name for polymorph ? > > _______________________________________________ > > 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/ >
_______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
