Standard Asynchronous Python
Steven D'Aprano
steve+comp.lang.python at pearwood.info
Mon Sep 10 09:24:10 EDT 2012
On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 07:36:11 -0400, Dustin J. Mitchell wrote:
> The responses have certainly highlighted some errors in emphasis in my
> approach.
>
> * My idea is to propose a design PEP. (Steven, Dennis) I'm not at *all*
> suggesting including uthreads in the standard library. It's a toy
> implementation I used to develop my ideas. I think of this as a much
> smaller idea in the same vein as the DBAPI (PEP 249): a common set of
> expectations that allows portability.
Okay, point taken, I misunderstood your proposal.
But my point still stands: since nobody except (possibly) you has used
your uthreads library, what gives you confidence that the API you suggest
is any good? Not just good, but good enough to impose that API on every
other async framework in the standard library and possibly beyond it?
If you have a good answer to that question, then it might be appropriate
to propose such an API.
(For what it's worth, consensus among the major async frameworks that
your approach was a good idea would be a pretty good answer to that
question.)
--
Steven
More information about the Python-list
mailing list