This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub, and is currently read-only.
For more information, see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.

Author yselivanov
Recipients André Caron, gvanrossum, vstinner, yselivanov
Date 2016-02-15.18:22:42
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <>
TBH I never ever needed to do membership tests on (done, failed) result of asyncio.wait.  If you need to do such tests - just wrap your coroutines into tasks manually.  I honestly don't understand what's the problem and why we need to change anything in asyncio or in Python.  There're tons of code on asyncio now, and this is only a second time someone wants to "fix" await.

Fixing #25887 allows us to enable multiple awaits on coroutines later, but I wouldn't rush that in 3.5 or 3.6.

Restricting asyncio.wait to accept only futures will also cause a lot of pain.  I'd just fix the docs with an explanation of this problem and with a snippet of code showing how to do membership tests if needed.  Alternatively, we can add a wrapper for asyncio.wait (wait_futures?), that will only accept futures/tasks.
Date User Action Args
2016-02-15 18:22:43yselivanovsetrecipients: + yselivanov, gvanrossum, vstinner, André Caron
2016-02-15 18:22:43yselivanovsetmessageid: <>
2016-02-15 18:22:43yselivanovlinkissue26357 messages
2016-02-15 18:22:42yselivanovcreate