On 30 April 2015 at 17:03, Stefan Behnel
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 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 How would I use "async for" to get the same result? (And the same for a concurrent.futures Executor in place of a multiprocessing pool). Paul.