Agree with Aurelien Lambert: if you call task.cancel() there is no
sense for expecting a normal result from a task.
My typical code for task cancellation looks like
task.cancel()
with contextlib.suppress(asyncio.CancelledError):
await task
If you need a partial task result you probably can build something
with asyncio.Condition (or use queue)
On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 7:20 AM <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Which means you cancel a running task but still have to wait for it and check
> if it eventually has a result. This is OK for internal use, but highly
> counter intuitive for the end-user. And it makes the cancelled status even
> more inconsistent, as calling cancel on a running task does not ensure it
> will actually be cancelled.
>
> This is highly disadvised by the documentation, and I think most users ignore
> a task once it has been cancelled while running.
> _______________________________________________
> Python-ideas mailing list -- [email protected]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
> https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/
> Message archived at
> https://mail.python.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/BPKASVTS4OVV7JMJ7QY632FGMC7XVGP7/
> Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
--
Thanks,
Andrew Svetlov
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/
Message archived at
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/4VULOBLBQ4JXADBKAGOBPZNTSTJAC3IG/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
