[Python-ideas] The async API of the future: PEP 3153 (async-pep)
Laurens Van Houtven
_ at lvh.cc
Sun Oct 14 17:29:27 CEST 2012
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 4:39 AM, Guido van Rossum <guido at python.org> wrote:
> Odd. Were those people experienced in writing / reviewing PEPs?
There were a few. Some of them were. Unfortunately the prevalent reason was
politics: "make it clear that you're not just trying to get twisted in the
stdlib". Given that that's been suggested both on and off-list, both now
and then, I guess that wasn't entirely unreasonable (but not providing
things to play with was -- the experience was just so bad I pretty much
never got there).
> >> > Do you feel that there should be less talk about rationale?
> >> No, but I feel that there should be some actual specification. I am
> >> also looking forward to an actual meaty bit of example code -- ISTR
> >> you mentioned you had something, but that it was incomplete, and I
> >> can't find the link.
> > Just examples of how it would work, nothing hooked up to real code. My
> > memory of it is more of a drowning-in-politics-and-bikeshedding kind of
> > thing, unfortunately :) Either way, I'm okay with letting bygones be
> > and focus on how we can get this show on the road.
> Shall I just reject PEP 3153 so it doesn't distract people? Of course
> we can still refer to it when people ask for a rationale for the
> separation between transports and protocols, but it doesn't seem the
> PEP itself is going to be finished (correct me if I'm wrong), and as
> it stands it is not useful as a software specification.
I'm not sure that's necessary; these threads show a lot of willpower to get
it done (even though that's not enough), and it's pretty easy to edit.
You're certainly right that right now it's not a useful software spec; but
neither would an empty new PEP be ;)
--Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Python-ideas