[Python-ideas] The async API of the future: yield-from
greg.ewing at canterbury.ac.nz
Tue Oct 16 09:20:08 CEST 2012
Guido van Rossum wrote:
> But there needs to be another way to get a task running immediately
> and concurrently; I believe that would be
> a = spawn(foo_task())
> right? One could then at any later point use
> ra = yield from a
Hmmm. I suppose it *could* be made to work that way, but I'm
not sure it's a good idea, because it blurs the distinction
between invoking a subtask synchronously and waiting for the
result of a previously spawned independent task.
Recently I've been thinking about an implementation where
it would look like this. First you do
t = spawn(foo_task())
but what you get back is *not* a generator; rather it's
a Task object which wraps a generator and provides various
operations. One of them would be
r = yield from t.wait()
which waits for the task to complete and then returns its
value (or if it raised an exception, propagates the exception).
Other operations that a Task object might support include
t.unblock() # wake up a blocked task
t.cancel() # unschedule and clean up the task
t.throw(exception) # raise an exception in the task
(I haven't included t.block(), because I think that should
be a stand-alone function that operates on the current task.
Telling some other task to block feels like a dodgy thing
> One could also combine these and do e.g.
> a = spawn(foo_task())
> b = spawn(bar_task())
> <do more work locally>
> ra, rb = yield from par(a, b)
If you're happy to bail out at the first exception, you
wouldn't strictly need a par() function for this, you could
a = spawn(foo_task())
b = spawn(bar_task())
ra = yield from a.wait()
rb = yield from b.wait()
> Have I got the spelling for spawn() right? In many other systems (e.g.
> threads, greenlets) this kind of operation takes a callable, not the
> result of calling a function (albeit a generator).
That's a result of the fact that a generator doesn't start
running as soon as you call it. If you don't like that, the
spawn() operation could be defined to take an uncalled generator
and make the call for you. But I think it's useful to make the
call yourself, because it gives you an opportunity to pass
parameters to the task.
> If it takes a
> generator, would it return the same generator or a different one to
> wait for?
In your version above where you wait for the task simply
by calling it with yield-from, spawn() would have to return a
generator (or something with the same interface). But it
couldn't be the same generator -- it would have to be a wrapper
that takes care of blocking until the subtask is finished.
More information about the Python-ideas