Nick Coghlan wrote:
Could you add a pseudocode expansion, similar to the one in PEP 343?
Something like:
_make_call = True _cocall = getattr(obj, "__cocall__", None) if _cocall is not None: _cocall_result = _cocall(*args, **kwds) _make_call = _cocall_result is NotImplemented if _make_call: _result = obj(*args, **kwds) else: _result = _cocall_result
It's not quite as simple as that, because whether a cocall was done determines whether the return value is subjected do a yield-from or used directly as the result.
This could be expressed by saying that
result = obj(*args, **kwds)
expands into
_done = False _cocall = getattr(obj, "__cocall__", None) if _cocall is not None: _iter = _cocall(*args, **kwds) if _iter is not NotImplemented: result = yield from _iter _done = True if not _done: result = obj.__call__(*args, **kwds)
Perhaps the PEP needs a "with not codef:" construct to revert to normal calling semantics for a section of code within a coroutine? You could still explicitly yield from such a code block, but it would otherwise be the coroutine equivalent of a critical section.
This is perhaps worth thinking about, but I'm not sure it's worth introducing special syntax for it. If you're working from the mindset of making as few assumptions as possible about suspension points, then your critical sections should be small and confined to the implementations of a few operations on your shared data structures. Now if you have a class such as
class Queue:
def add_item(self, x): ...
def remove_item(): ...
then it's already obvious from the fact that these methods are defined with 'def' and not 'codef' that they can't cause a suspension, either directly or indirectly, and will therefore be executed atomically from the coroutine perspective.
In other words, wherever you might feel inclined to enclose a set of statements in a 'with not codef' block, you can get the same effect by factoring them out into an ordinary function, the atomicity of which is easy to verify by inspecting the function header. So the motivation for introducing more special syntax here appears weak.