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 syncosmic
Recipients ncoghlan, syncosmic, yselivanov
Date 2017-08-18.16:58:21
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <>
I like where this is heading! Aside from the cleaner patterns for handling these objects, I think it'll make it a little easier for people who are just starting to use asynchronous objects in Python (e.g. me) to grasp what's similar about them.

+1 that `__async_call__` could be confusing, for the general reason you mention, but in particular because it would look exactly analogous to `function.__call__()` (what the French call a "faux ami").

A not-thought-out alternative: what about noun-ing the verbs into `__async_calls__` and `__async_returns__` (or maybe `__async_returns_to__`)?

BTW, I was thinking of taking a quick run at bpo-31197 while this simmers. I don't /think/ that risks being eventually mooted by these changes; if anything, it might be easier to adapt `dis` to this proposal if that refactoring has already been done. LMK if you think that's the wrong order, though.
Date User Action Args
2017-08-18 16:58:21syncosmicsetrecipients: + syncosmic, ncoghlan, yselivanov
2017-08-18 16:58:21syncosmicsetmessageid: <>
2017-08-18 16:58:21syncosmiclinkissue31230 messages
2017-08-18 16:58:21syncosmiccreate