On 19.08.2015 11:24, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>> Catching up on email after travelling last week, I want to explicitly> note that don't agree with this any more - there's one method name on> the event loop I think needs tweaking (for background blocking calls> in another thread or process), but PEP 492 otherwise delivers all the> pieces needed to make it straightforward to run the event loop as> needed from synchronous code. I did a lightning talk about that at> PyCon Australia, which I'll turn into another> asyncio-in-your-synchronous-test-suite blog post at some point:> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pfJZfdwkgI
Nice video!
> Explicitly asynchronous code is as much a tool for thinking as it is> an execution model, so I've come to realise that folks wanting to hide> the conceptual modelling is akin to the complaints we hear from folks> learning imaginary numbers for the first time, and insisting that real> numbers ought to be enough for anyone.
That is where I disagree. It is not about insisting that it would be
enough. It is about insisting that giving it a try is not equal to
rewrite 100% of your code.
> Yes, asyncio (like Twisted> before it) does stretch our brains in new and interesting ways -> that's the main reason it's worth having in the standard library :)
That certainly is very true. During all these discussions, I really
learned a lot.
However, the main intention has not been changed: lowering the entry
barriers.
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list
Pyth...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/