On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 5:50 AM, Stefan Behnel <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:Yury Selivanov schrieb am 30.04.2015 um 03:30:
> 1. Terminology:
> - *native coroutine* term is used for "async def" functions.
When I read "native", I think of native (binary) code. So "native
coroutine" sounds like it's implemented in some compiled low-level
language. That might be the case (certainly in the CPython world), but it's
not related to this PEP nor its set of examples.
> We should discuss how we will name new 'async def' coroutines in
> Python Documentation if the PEP is accepted.
Well, it doesn't hurt to avoid obvious misleading terminology upfront.I think "obvious[ly] misleading" is too strong, nobody is trying to mislead anybody, we just have different associations with the same word. Given the feedback I'd call "native coroutine" suboptimal (even though I proposed it myself) and I am now in favor of using "async function".