[Python-3000] Futures in Python 3000

[Josiah Carlson]

Andy Sy <andy at neotitans.com> wrote:
> Greg Ewing wrote:
> > There's a lot more to this than syntax. The oddities
> > surrounding Python generators are mostly due to their
> > "one-level-deep" nature, i.e. they're not full coroutines.
> > And there are deep implementation reasons for that.
> 
> Does this mean that Py3K intends to reuse major portions of
> Python 2.x's implementation?

Aahz just answered this.


> If Py3K intends to break backwards compatibility, doesn't this
> mean that if a simpler and more inclusive, more general
> asynchronous mechanism than generators is possible, then there
> should be no qualms about dropping or supplementing the latter?
> Or would this be enough of a difference that it would make for
> 'a different language'?

From the discussion I've been paying attention to over the last few
years, *some* parts of Py3k will be backwards incompatible.  The
question really is whether or not Io or stackless style continuations
are better than what currently exists.

In my experience, I find generators to be quite easy to write, use,
modify, and read.  Without a sample syntax, execution semantic, and/or
implementation (as Guido has already asked for), it is quite difficult
for us to measure the positive or negative change (in readability,
writability, understandability, etc.) over what we already have.


 - Josiah