Sven R. Kunze added the comment:
2 remarks:
1) I would rather go for a more comprehensible name such as 'get_awaitable'
instead of 'blocking_call'. Later reminds me of the execution of f which is not
the case.
2) redundant ) in the end of """Usage: result = await asyncio.blocking_call(f,
*ar
Sven R. Kunze added the comment:
Thanks for taking the initiative here, Nick. I created a follow-up on this:
http://bugs.python.org/issue24578
In order to bridge both worlds, projects might need convenient way from and to
either world (classic and asyncio).
--
components: +asyncio
nos
New submission from Nick Coghlan:
Based on a current python-dev discussion, I'd like to suggest a high level
convenience API in asyncio to dispatch a blocking call out to a separate thread
or process:
# Call blocking operation from asynchronous code
def blocking_call(f, *args, **kwds):
