[Python-Dev] PEP 492: async/await in Python; version 5

Guido van Rossum guido at python.org
Wed May 6 23:39:30 CEST 2015

Sorry to send you on such a wild goose chase! I did mean the issue you
found #21). I just updated it with a link to a thread that has more
news:  https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/python-tulip/tkinter/python-tulip/TaSVW-pjWro/hCP6qS4eRnAJ

I wasn't able to verify the version by Luciano Ramalho. (And yes, extending
all this to working with a subprocess is left as an exercise. It's all
pretty academic IMO, given Tkinter's lack of popularity outside IDLE.)

On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 2:32 PM, Terry Reedy <tjreedy at udel.edu> wrote:

> On 5/5/2015 10:59 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>> For this you should probably use an integration of asyncio (which can do
>> async subprocess output nicely) with Tkinter. Over in tulip-land there
>> is an demo of such an integration.
> After redirection from googlecode tulip, I found
> https://github.com/python/asyncio/tree/master/examples
> None of the 4 *process*.py examples mention tkinter.
> I also found "Create a Tkinter/Tulip integration"
> https://github.com/python/asyncio/issues/21
> with attachment tk_ayncio.zip
> copied (with 'async' replacing 'tulip') to
> https://bitbucket.org/haypo/asyncio_staging/src/bb76064d80b0a03bf3f7b13652e595dfe475c7f8/asyncio_tkinter/?at=default
> None of the integration files mention subprocess, so I presume you are
> suggesting that I use a modification of one of the example subprocess
> coroutines with the integration framework.
> If this works well, might it make sense to consider using an elaboration
> of examples/subprocess_shell.py to replace subprocess socket communication
> with pipe comminication?
>  On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 6:03 PM, Terry Reedy <tjreedy at udel.edu
>> <mailto:tjreedy at udel.edu>> wrote:
>      My specific use case is to be able to run a program in a separate
>>     process, but display the output in the gui process -- something like
>>     this (in Idle, for instance).  (Apologies if this misuses the new
>>     keywords.)
>>     async def menu_handler()
>>          ow = OutputWindow(args)  # tk Widget
>>          proc = subprocess.Popen (or multiprocessing equivalent)
>>          out = (stdout from process)
>>          await for line in out:
>>              ow.write(line)
>>          finish()
>>     I want the handler to not block event processing, and disappear
>>     after finishing.  Might 492 make this possible someday?  Or would
>>     having 'line in pipe' or just 'data in pipe' translated to a tk
>>     event likely require a patch to tk?
> --
> Terry Jan Reedy
> _______________________________________________
> Python-Dev mailing list
> Python-Dev at python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
> Unsubscribe:
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/guido%40python.org

--Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20150506/c0d7656b/attachment.html>

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list