Interesting, but wouldn't it be simpler to provide a helper so that you can write result = wait(my_function()) for the synchronous version and result = await my_function() for the async version? On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 3:10 PM, James Stidard <jamesstidard@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
I just joined this mailing list, but not overly sure if it’s the right place for this discussion or now - please tell me to quite down and go away if so :). But if you’d be so kind as to point me in the right direction that would also be good.
I’m currently building a library which has an asynchronous interface and I wanted to make it also be callable serially - handy for users of the library not using coroutines, as well as just using in the REPL. I didn’t want to maintain two implementations of essentially the same functions (one with awaits and ones without); I just wanted to run the async function on pythons current loop. I also wanted to present the interface in a consistent way without the need to prefix or suffix ‘async’ into the function name. e.g.
result = my_function(asynchronous=False) result = await my_function(asynchronous=True)
I didn’t think this would be possible but I think I managed it. I just want to sanity check this because I think it’s pretty cool if it works. I’ve attached the code I wrote to test it. The assumption I’ve made is about get_event_loop making sense for just picking the current python thread of execution. Any thoughts?
If attachments aren’t supported, here’s a gist: https://gist.github.com/JamesStidard/3317969472f4b3fc938a4ab29c5e1ecf
Thanks, James
_______________________________________________ Async-sig mailing list Async-sig@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/async-sig Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
-- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)