In order to complement http://bugs.python.org/issue24571, this is another high-level convenience API for asyncio to treat an awaitable like a usual subroutine (credits go to Nick Coghlan):

    # Call awaitable from synchronous code
    def wait_for_result(awaitable):
        """Usage: result = asyncio.wait_for_result(awaitable)"""
        return asyncio.get_event_loop().run_until_complete(awaitable.__await__())

It may not be that conceptually dense, however, I feel for projects transitioning from the classical subroutine world to the asyncio world, this functionality might prove useful to bridge both worlds seamlessly when necessary.

I don’t think you need the __await__() call. Just do loop.run_until_complete(awaitable).

I understand “asyncio” doesn’t support recursive calls into the same event loop on purpose; see Issue 22239. So this code would only be useful from outside of the event loop, or if more than one event loop was in use.

It occurs to me that given both this API and the "call_async()" API now proposed in issue 24571, otherwise synchronous code can do things like:

    futureB = asyncio.call_async(slow_io_bound_operation)
    futureC = asyncio.call_async(another_slow_io_bound_operation)
    a = calculateA()
    b = asyncio.wait_for_result(futureB)
    c = asyncio.wait_for_result(futureC)

Which still reads well when combined with await:

    b = await asyncio.call_async(blocking_operation)

Maybe the two issues should be merged so the two proposals can be considered together. I'm -0 on both, because each of these is really just one line of code and it seems they both encourage mindless copy-pasting that just saddens me (similar to "Python" scripts I sometimes see that are just a series of shell invocations using subprocess.getoutput() or similar, including calls to "rm" or "echo").

As Guido suggested, merging back into issue 24571