New submission from Alfred Sawaya <alf...@huji.fr>:
asyncio.future.wrap_future is used to wrap a concurrent.future.Future in a asyncio.future.Future. The actual implementation as the following behaviours : 1) When the concurrent.future.Future gets a result, the asyncio.future.Future gets the same result, 2) When the asyncio.future.Future is cancelled, the concurrent.future.Future is cancelled I wonder why the futures synchronisation is not symmetrical ? I propose to add the following behaviours : 3) When the asyncio.future.Future gets a result, the concurrent.future.Future gets the same result, 4) When the concurrent.future.Future is cancelled, the asyncio.future.Future is cancelled I have also posted a request pull that implements the proposed behaviours, in case of acceptation. If there is good reasons to not implement the proposed behaviours, I would be glad to know. Thank you ! ---------- components: asyncio messages: 323703 nosy: asvetlov, huji, yselivanov priority: normal pull_requests: 8280 severity: normal status: open title: Double chaining futures in asyncio.future.wrap_future type: enhancement versions: Python 3.6, Python 3.7, Python 3.8 _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue34430> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
