[Python-ideas] More general "for" loop handling

[Todd]

On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 6:45 PM, Paul Moore <p.f.moore at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 30 April 2015 at 17:03, Stefan Behnel <stefan_ml at behnel.de> wrote:
> > Steven D'Aprano schrieb am 30.04.2015 um 13:36:
> >> "async for" hasn't proven itself yet, and you are already looking to
> >> generalise it? Shouldn't it prove itself as not a mistake first?
> >
> > Also, it should be quite possible to achieve what the OP proposed with
> > "async for" since it's in no way limited to the way asyncio handles
> things.
> > "async for" is a bit of a badly named feature, but that's intended in
> order
> > to match what people would know from other programming languages.
>
> Could you explain how?
>
> Specifically, what's the translation of
>
> from multiprocessing import Pool
>
>     mypool = Pool(10, maxtasksperchild=2)
>
>     mypool for item in items:
>         do_something_here
>         do_something_else
>         do_yet_another_thing
>
> I'm assuming that's the OP's intention (it's certainly mine) is that
> the "mypool for" loop works something like
>
>     def _work(item):
>         do_something_here
>         do_something_else
>         do_yet_another_thing
>     for _ in mypool.map(_work, items):
>         # Wait for the subprocesses
>         pass
>

Yes, thank you, that is exactly what I intended.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-ideas/attachments/20150430/5ade84e2/attachment.html>