On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 11:01 AM, Steven D'Aprano firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
If all you are saying is that you can't suspend an arbitrary function at at arbitrary point, well, true, but that's a good thing, surely? The idea of a function is that it has one entry point, it does its thing, and then it returns. If you want different behaviour, don't use a function.
Or do you mean something else? Actual working Python code (or not working, as the case may be) would probably help.
The number 1 use case for coroutines is doing asynchronous I/O (and other event loop based programming) elegantly. That's why libraries/frameworks like Twisted and gevent exist. The *only* reason to add support to the core is if we can do it in a way that makes programs that use coroutines as straightforward to write as threaded programs.
Coroutines are essentially useful for the same reason any form of cooperative multitasking is useful - it's a way to structure a program as concurrently executed sequences of instructions without incurring the overhead of an OS level thread (or process!) for each operation stream.
Ideally, we would like to make it possible to write code like this:
def coroutine_friendly_io(*args, **kwds): if in_coroutine(): return coyield AsychronousRequest(async_op, *args, **kwds) else: return sync_op(*args, **kwds)
Why would you want one function to do double duty as both blocking and non-blocking? Particularly when the two branches don't appear to share any code (at least not in the example as given). To me, this seems like "Do What I Mean" magic which would be better written as a pair of functions:
def coroutine_friendly_io(*args, **kwds): yield from AsychronousRequest(async_op, *args, **kwds)
def blocking_io(*args, **kwargs): return sync_op(*args, **kwds)
If you can't merge the synchronous and asynchronous version of your I/O routines, it means you end up having to write everything in the entire stack twice - once in an "event loop friendly" way (that promises never to block - generator based coroutines are just a way to help with writing code like that) and once in the normal procedural way. That's why Twisted has its own version of virtually all the I/O libraries in the standard library - the impedance mismatch between our the standard library's blocking I/O model and the needs of event loop based programming is usually just too big to overcome at the library/framework level without significant duplication of functionality. If the "block or suspend?" decision can instead be made at the lowest layers (as is currently possible with greenlets), then the intervening layers *don't need to care* what actually happens under the hood and the two worlds can start to move closer together.
Compare the current situation with cooperative multitasking to the comparative ease of programming with threaded code, where, with the GIL in place, there's a mixture of pre-emptive multi-tasking (the interpreter can switch threads between any two bytecodes) and cooperative multi-tasking (voluntarily relinquishing the GIL), all of which is handled at the *lowest* layer in the stack, and the upper layers generally couldn't care in the least which thread they're running in. You still have the inherent complexity of coping with shared data access in a concurrent environment to deal with, of course, but at least the code you're running in the individual threads is just ordinary Python code.
The cofunction PEP as it stands does nothing to help with that bifurcation problem, so I now see it as basically pointless.
By contrast, the greenlets module (and, before that, Stackless itself) helps bring cooperative multitasking up to the same level as threaded programming - within a greenlet, you're just writing ordinary Python code. It just so happens that some of the functions you call may suspend your frame stack and start running a different one for a while.
The fact that greenlets exists (and works) demonstrates that it is possible to correctly manage and execute multiple Python stacks within a single OS thread. It's probably more worthwhile to focus on providing either symmetric (greenlets style, "switch to specific coroutine") or asymmetric (Lua style, "suspend and pass control back to the frame that invoked the coroutine") coroutines rather than assuming that the current "generators all the way down" restriction is an inviolable constraint.
As far as a concrete example goes, let's consider a simple screen echo utility that accepts an iterable and prints whatever comes out:
def echo_all(iterable): for line in iterable: print(line)
So far so good. I can run that in my main OS thread, or in a subthread and it will all work happily. I can even pass in an operation that reads lines from a file or a socket.
OK, the socket case sounds potentially interesting, and it's obvious how it works with blocking IO, but what about asynchronous IO and an event loop? In current Python, the answer is that it *doesn't* work, *unless* you use greenlets (or Stackless). If you want to use generator based coroutines instead, you have to write a *new* version of echo_all and it's a mess, because you have requests to the event loop (e.g. "let me know when this socket has data ready") and the actual data to be printed intermingled in the same communications channel. And that all has to be manually passed back up to the event loop, because there's no standardised way for the socket read operation to say "look, just suspend this entire call stack until the socket has some data for me".
Having something like a codef/coyield pair that allows the entire coroutine stack to be suspended means a coroutine can use the given "echo_all" function as is. All that needs to happen is that:
1. echo_all() gets invoked (directly or indirectly) from a coroutine defined with codef 2. the passed in iterable uses coyield whenever it wants to pass control back to the event loop that called the coroutine in the first place
The intervening layer in the body of echo_all() can then remain blissfully unaware that anything unusual is going on, just as it currently has no idea when a socket read blocks, allowing other OS threads to execute while waiting for data to arrive.
Yes, the nonblocking I/O operations would need to have a protocol that they use to communicate with the event loop, but again, one of the virtues of true coroutines is that the details of that event loop implementation specific protocol can be hidden behind a standardised API.
Under such a scheme, 'return x' and 'yield x' and function calls would all retain their usual meanings.
Instead of directly invoking 'coyield x', nonblocking I/O operations might write:
event_loop.resume_when_ready(handle) # Ask event loop to let us know when data is available
The need for trampoline scheduling largely goes away, since you only need to go back to the event loop when you're going to do something that may block.
It's even possible that new keywords wouldn't be needed (as greenlets demonstrates).