April 30, 2015
5:26 p.m.
On 1/05/2015 5:31 a.m., Guido van Rossum wrote:
Ah. But 'async for' is not meant to introduce parallelism or concurrency.
This kind of confusion is why I'm not all that enamoured of using the word "async" the way PEP 492 does. But since there seems to be prior art for it in other languages now, I suppose there are at least some people out there who won't be confused by it. -- Greg