Re: [Python-ideas] More general "for" loop handling

30 Apr 2015


      On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 6:45 PM, Paul Moore  wrote:
...
...
Steven D'Aprano schrieb am 30.04.2015 um 13:36:
...
"async for" hasn't proven itself yet, and you are already looking to
generalise it? Shouldn't it prove itself as not a mistake first?
Also, it should be quite possible to achieve what the OP proposed with
"async for" since it's in no way limited to the way asyncio handles
On 30 April 2015 at 17:03, Stefan Behnel  wrote:
things.
...
"async for" is a bit of a badly named feature, but that's intended in
order
to match what people would know from other programming languages.
Could you explain how?
Specifically, what's the translation of
from multiprocessing import Pool
mypool = Pool(10, maxtasksperchild=2)
mypool for item in items:
        do_something_here
        do_something_else
        do_yet_another_thing
I'm assuming that's the OP's intention (it's certainly mine) is that
the "mypool for" loop works something like
def _work(item):
        do_something_here
        do_something_else
        do_yet_another_thing
    for _ in mypool.map(_work, items):
        # Wait for the subprocesses
        pass
Yes, thank you, that is exactly what I intended.

Re: [Python-ideas] More general "for" loop handling

Todd