[Python-3000] Futures in Python 3000

[Andy Sy]

Josiah Carlson wrote:

> Andy Sy <andy at neotitans.com> wrote:
>> Does this mean that Py3K intends to reuse major portions of
>> Python 2.x's implementation?
>
> Aahz just answered this.

> From the discussion I've been paying attention to over the last few
> years, *some* parts of Py3k will be backwards incompatible.
>
> 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.

Err... thank you once again for being redundant, reiterating what is
already pretty much dead clear to everyone and saying nothing new
in general.

* Yes, Aahz DID answer my question regarding reuse of Python 2.x implementation
  in Py3K
* Yes, Guido DID ask for a prototype implementation for anyone who would lobby
  for a new async mechanism
* Yes, generators are quite easy to write, use, modify and read (once
  you get the concept), except I don't see how you can easily use them to
  implement non-blocking I/O in their current state (I believe I've
  already mentioned that twice)...

Let's see... anything else I've missed?  Oh yeah...

* _Some_ parts of Py3K will be backwards incompatible

Could anyone be possibly more condescending as to have to repeat
that... ???  You must think other people pay even less attention
to things than you do.



> The question really is whether or not Io or stackless style
> continuations are better than what currently exists.

Actually... it's whether or not a futures-inspired abstraction would
make for a more pythonic asynchronous mechanism compared to an enhanced
generator as described in PEP 342.  Nothing to do with Io or Stackless
per se.  I guess you weren't really paying attention that time too.
Feh.