> On May 2, 2021, at 4:25 PM, Illia Volochii wrote:
>
>
>>
>> I would prefer to wait for 3.11 to remove more deprecated features,
>> these ones can survive a little bit longer.
>>
>> If possible, I suggest to remove functions at the beginning of a new
>> Python development cycle, rather than
> I would prefer to wait for 3.11 to remove more deprecated features,
> these ones can survive a little bit longer.
>
> If possible, I suggest to remove functions at the beginning of a new
> Python development cycle, rather than just before the feature freeze.
> So projects tested with the developm
Hi,
On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 10:51 PM Illia Volochii
wrote:
> There are a couple of uncompleted asyncio feature removals scheduled
> for 3.9 and 3.10 releases.
> It will be great if we either complete them or reschedule before the
> 3.10 feature freeze. There are two stale pull requests related to
On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 7:04 PM Nathaniel Smith wrote:
>
> @asyncio.coroutine and @types.coroutine are different beasts.
> @asyncio.coroutine is the deprecated one; @types.coroutine is
> lower-level and not deprecated.
According to @Guido van Rossum in this message of Feb. 19, 2021 [1],
@types.co
@asyncio.coroutine and @types.coroutine are different beasts.
@asyncio.coroutine is the deprecated one; @types.coroutine is
lower-level and not deprecated.
On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 2:48 PM Luciano Ramalho wrote:
>
> I don't understand how it's possible to "Deprecate @coroutine for sake
> of async
I don't understand how it's possible to "Deprecate @coroutine for sake
of async def" when native coroutines ultimately depend on a generator
to be driven by the event loop.
What am I missing?
Perhaps in asyncio the generator magic is now written in C, but as
Nathaniel J. Smith points out, Trio an
