syncosmic added the comment:
I like where this is heading! Aside from the cleaner patterns for handling
these objects, I think it'll make it a little easier for people who are just
starting to use asynchronous objects in Python (e.g. me) to grasp what's
similar about them
syncosmic added the comment:
A related issue (since this issue is contemplating restructuring these objects
anyway):
Other than `??_code`, none of the `f.func_X` attributes which were eliminated
in 3.0 have direct equivalents in generator-iterators, coroutines, or async
generator-iterators
syncosmic added the comment:
Some possibly helpful background (adapted from a discussion in PR 3077):
It looks as though `gi_code` was added to generators in bpo-1473257. At this
time, function bytecode was still stored in `f.func_code`, so `gi_code` was a
clear analogy.
My best guess is
Changes by syncosmic :
--
pull_requests: -3163
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue31230>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
Changes by syncosmic :
--
nosy: +syncosmic
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue31230>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
Changes by syncosmic :
--
pull_requests: +3163
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue31230>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
