Message 413335 - Python tracker

➜

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	dhalbert
Recipients	asvetlov, dhalbert, gvanrossum, iritkatriel, njs, yselivanov
Date	2022-02-16.15:29:01
SpamBayes Score	-1.0
Marked as misclassified	Yes
Message-id	<1645025341.43.0.503627925386.issue46752@roundup.psfhosted.org>
In-reply-to

Content
For your TODO list (not sure how else to communicate this): I agree with the de-emphasis of gather(). I think adding another version of gather() that cancels all the remaining tasks if one fails would also be good, unless you think it is completely redundant due to TaskGroups. This idea was originally mentioned in https://bugs.python.org/issue31452 as a bug, and determined to be "works as designed". So now making an all-cancel() version of gather() is an idiom that people keep recoding, e.g. https://stackoverflow.com/questions/59073556/how-to-cancel-all-remaining-tasks-in-gather-if-one-fails.

For your TODO list (not sure how else to communicate this):

I agree with the de-emphasis of gather(). I think adding another version of gather() that cancels all the remaining tasks if one fails would also be good, unless you think it is completely redundant due to TaskGroups. This idea was originally mentioned in https://bugs.python.org/issue31452 as a bug, and determined to be "works as designed". So now making an all-cancel() version of gather() is an idiom that people keep recoding, e.g. https://stackoverflow.com/questions/59073556/how-to-cancel-all-remaining-tasks-in-gather-if-one-fails.

History
Date	User	Action	Args
2022-02-16 15:29:01	dhalbert	set	recipients: + dhalbert, gvanrossum, njs, asvetlov, yselivanov, iritkatriel
2022-02-16 15:29:01	dhalbert	set	messageid: <1645025341.43.0.503627925386.issue46752@roundup.psfhosted.org>
2022-02-16 15:29:01	dhalbert	link	issue46752 messages
2022-02-16 15:29:01	dhalbert	create