t+1 - Latest Comments in Wacky idea for python coroutines

Re: Wacky idea for python coroutines

Matt Wilson — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 09:48:42 -0000

Hi Calvin -- thanks for the comment! After the callback fires, how can I go back into the code that originally raised the exception? As far as I understand, that frame is inacessible.

Re: Wacky idea for python coroutines

Calvin — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 00:32:19 -0000

I've thought about this but came to the conclusion that this begs a distinction between error handling and error repair and repair we can simply handle with proper callbacks.

Re: Wacky idea for python coroutines

Matt Wilson — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 16:37:24 -0000

Florian, thanks for the extra detail. I think I need to study co-routines in stackless, pypy, and greenlets before I will really understand your point.

Re: Wacky idea for python coroutines

Florian — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 16:17:22 -0000

I mean to say generators with yield/send are not full co-routines. Full co-routines can switch to another thread of execution from anywhere within the call stack and return there later. If you want to do the same with generators, you need to start treating every "call" as an iteration.
Hence generators are very pointless to use as co-routines, and greenlets which are actually co-routines are much better at that capacity.

Re: Wacky idea for python coroutines

Matt Wilson — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 13:56:18 -0000

Florian -- I don't think I follow you. What do you mean by yielding across call stacks? How is that different than regular yield and send?

Re: Wacky idea for python coroutines

Florian — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 12:01:59 -0000

Without the ability to yield across call stacks, generators as co-routines are useless. I'd suggest using co-routines as co-routines, in this case, which are implemented by stackless, pypy and the greenlet module.