Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.python > #102767
| From | "Sven R. Kunze" <srkunze@mail.de> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.python |
| Subject | Re: Asyncio thought experiment |
| Date | 2016-02-10 18:44 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.16.1455126257.22075.python-list@python.org> (permalink) |
| References | <87oabqq2a0.fsf@elektro.pacujo.net> |
On 08.02.2016 23:13, Marko Rauhamaa wrote: > As I stated in an earlier post, a normal subroutine may turn out to be > blocking. To make it well-behaved under asyncio, you then dutifully tag > the subroutine with "async" and adorn the blocking statement with > "await". Consequently, you put "await" in front of all calls to the > subroutine and cascade the "async"s and "await"s all the way to the top > level. > > Now what would prevent you from making *every* function an "async" and > "await"ing *every* function call? Then, you would never fall victim to > the cascading async/await. > > And if you did that, why bother sprinkling async's and await's > everywhere? Why not make every single function call an await implicitly > and every single subroutine an async? In fact, that's how everything > works in multithreading: blocking statements don't need to be ornamented > in any manner. So? :) Best, Sven
Back to comp.lang.python | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Asyncio thought experiment Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-02-09 00:13 +0200 Re: Asyncio thought experiment "Sven R. Kunze" <srkunze@mail.de> - 2016-02-10 18:44 +0100
csiph-web