Maybe the thing to fix then is the inspect module, not asyncio? Anyway, let
is know via tickets.
On Sat, Apr 18, 2015 at 12:29 PM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
> Stefan Behnel schrieb am 18.04.2015 um 19:39:
> > Guido van Rossum schrieb am 18.04.2015 um 18:38:
> >> That's a good question. We *could* mak
Stefan Behnel schrieb am 18.04.2015 um 19:39:
> Guido van Rossum schrieb am 18.04.2015 um 18:38:
>> That's a good question. We *could* make it so that you can subclass
>> Generator and instantiate the instances; or we could even make it do some
>> structural type checking. (Please file a pull reque
Guido van Rossum schrieb am 18.04.2015 um 18:38:
> That's a good question. We *could* make it so that you can subclass
> Generator and instantiate the instances; or we could even make it do some
> structural type checking. (Please file a pull request or issue for this at
> github.com/ambv/typehinti
That's a good question. We *could* make it so that you can subclass
Generator and instantiate the instances; or we could even make it do some
structural type checking. (Please file a pull request or issue for this at
github.com/ambv/typehinting .) But perhaps we should also change asyncio?
What che
(Also, there might be some interaction with PEP 492 here, which also tweaks
the definition of generators.)
On Sat, Apr 18, 2015 at 9:38 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> That's a good question. We *could* make it so that you can subclass
> Generator and instantiate the instances; or we could even ma
