Marcin Szewczyk added the comment:
Thanks for the update.
Regarding the plain generator part -- am I right thinking it's simply a
generator not decorated with @asyncio.coroutine?
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
Fixed in https://hg.python.org/peps/rev/7ad183c1d9be
I'll quote the commit message here:
pep-492: Update benchmark code
Since coroutines now have a distinct type, they do not support
iteration. Instead of doing 'list(o)', we now do 'o.send(None)'
Stefan Behnel added the comment:
Thanks for updating the micro-benchmark. Just FYI (and sorry for hijacking this
ticket), I ran it through Cython. Here are the numbers:
Cython 0.23 (latest master)
binary(21) * 3: total 1.609s
abinary(21) * 3: total 1.514s
CPython 3.5 (latest branch)
New submission from Marcin Szewczyk:
Using benchmark from the section
https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0492/#async-await raises:
Traceback (most recent call last):
File ./bench.py, line 28, in module
timeit(abinary, 19, 30)
File ./bench.py, line 23, in timeit
list(gen(depth))
Terry J. Reedy added the comment:
timeit(binary, 5, 3)
timeit(abinary, 5, 3)
gives me the same error running on Win 7 from Idle
--
nosy: +terry.reedy
stage: - needs patch
type: enhancement - behavior
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
Changes by Ezio Melotti ezio.melo...@gmail.com:
--
nosy: +ezio.melotti
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue24654
___
___
