On 11 October 2017 at 02:52, Guido van Rossum email@example.com wrote:
I think we really need to do more soul-searching before we decide that a much more complex semantics and implementation is worth it to maintain backwards compatibility for leaking in via next().
As a less-contrived example, consider context managers implemented as generators.
We want those to run with the execution context that's active when they're used in a with statement, not the one that's active when they're created (the fact that generator-based context managers can only be used once mitigates the risk of creation time context capture causing problems, but the implications would still be weird enough to be worth avoiding).
For native coroutines, we want them to run with the execution context that's active when they're awaited or when they're prepared for submission to an event loop, not the one that's active when they're created.
For generators-as-coroutines, we want them to be like their native coroutine counterparts: run with the execution context that's active when they're passed to "yield from" or prepared for submission to an event loop.
It's only for generators-as-iterators that the question of what behaviour we want even really arises, as it's less clear cut whether we'd be better off overall if they behaved more like an eagerly populated container (and hence always ran with the execution context that's active when they're created), or more like the way they do now (where retrieval of the next value from a generator is treated like any other method call).
That combination of use cases across context managers, native coroutines, top level event loop tasks, and generator-based coroutines mean we already need to support both execution models regardless, so the choice of default behaviour for generator-iterators won't make much difference to the overall complexity of the PEP.
However, having generator-iterators default to not capturing their creation context makes them more consistent with the other lazy evaluation constructs, and also makes the default ContextVar semantics more consistent with thread local storage semantics.
The flipside of that argument would be:
I just don't find that counterargument compelling when we have specific use cases that definitely benefit from the proposed default behaviour (contextlib.contextmanager, asyncio.coroutine), but no concrete use cases for the proposed alternative that couldn't be addressed by a combination of map(), functools.partial(), and contextvars.run_in_execution_context().
-- Nick Coghlan | firstname.lastname@example.org | Brisbane, Australia