[Python-ideas] Re: asyncio.Pipe()

I created an implementation on PyPI here: https://pypi.org/project/asyncio-pipe/ I am using the same function signatures that multiprocessing.Connection does. I use composition, and have changed recv(), poll, recv_bytes(), and recv_bytes_into(buffer) so that they will not block the event loop.

[Python-ideas] Re: asyncio.Pipe()

Okay, fair. I am guessing that the first step would be to create a quality implementation and publish it on PyPI. And of course this begs the question, *who* is going to do the work? [ducks] On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 10:27 AM Roger Iyengar wrote: > It was not sufficient. The only way to

[Python-ideas] Re: asyncio.Pipe()

It was not sufficient. The only way to communicate with a Subprocesses is using stdout, stdin and stderr. However, packages like Tensroflow will print messages to stdout, and this can be hard to turn off. It seems useful to have a class like multiprocessing.Pipe to communicate with another

[Python-ideas] Re: asyncio.Pipe()

The asyncio module already has a subprocess support: Subprocesses — Python 3.9.1 documentation Was that not sufficient to solve your problem? On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 5:23 AM Roger Iyengar wrote: > I believe that asyncio should have a