Yes, exactly. Wouldn't that be a useful built-in?
(And, is this really the first time this idea is being discussed?)
Thanks,
Josh
On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 9:12:35 PM UTC-4, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 5:58 PM, Greg Ewing > wrote:
> > j...@math.brown.edu wrote:
> >
On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 5:58 PM, Greg Ewing wrote:
> j...@math.brown.edu wrote:
>>
>> it would be nice if we could write an async version of this, as in ``async
>> for chunk in aiter(...)``.
>
> The time machine seems to have taken care of this:
>
> https://docs.python.org/3.6/reference/compound_s
j...@math.brown.edu wrote:
it would be nice if we could write an async version
of this, as in ``async for chunk in aiter(...)``.
The time machine seems to have taken care of this:
https://docs.python.org/3.6/reference/compound_stmts.html#the-async-for-statement
--
Greg
___
I first learned the ``for chunk in iter(lambda: sock.recv(N), b'')`` trick
from page 138 of Dave Beazley’s fantastic Python Cookbook (“4.16. Replacing
Infinite while Loops with an Iterator”), and never looked back.
When I started to play with consuming sockets asynchronously, it occurred
to me tha
