Guido van Rossum
Guido van Rossum
-1. Something that's only meant to be used at the top level doesn't deserve to be a coroutine IMO. And even if we have forever() I think you should be...
That's also ambiguous (is it a verb or a noun?). And the issue of whether it would just be a shorthand for sleep(inf) is still unsettled.
IIRC people are currently using a bare yield as the equivalent of sleep(0) -- just bounce to the loop, run all callbacks, and then continue. How can it _also_ mean...
Also frankly run_in_executor() is a pretty clumsy API due to the initial parameter that is usually None. Is it really important enough to have this? (Again, I worry that this...
Oh, it's async generators. Too subtle. We _did_ fix get_event_loop(), and we're all happy with that. Can we just stop now please?
Only if it's obviously correct. The gyrations we're going through here suggest that it's not. (Or not yet.)
Then you are on your own. I have enough stress in my life without having to worry about this.
Unfortunately you have to manage the child watcher when you choose to create multiple event loops that spawn subprocesses. There's definitely some unfinished business here that I'd like to see...
At the lowest level in asyncio (i.e. if you have a socket) if you just start sending, loop.sock_sendall() you will indeed be hit by this if the optimization misfires. But...
@gpshead This seems your territory -- do you have time to look into this? The ideas seem solid.