I'm not entirely sure why you feel this is unintuitive or why you should need a workaround; in any other case, deferreds work pretty much the same way.
When reading this code, the first question that pops up in my head is: why are you doing this instead of just using the result that you already have (and assigned to a name)? How did this waiting-twice-on-one-deferred happen? On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 8:47 AM, Sergey V. Gerasimov <ser...@gmail.com>wrote: > It’s not intuitively clear why multiple yielding the same Defferred in > function decorated with defer.inlineCallbacks get different results:**** > > ** ** > > @defer.inlineCallbacks**** > > def f():**** > > d = defer.succeed(1)**** > > result = yield d**** > > print result**** > > result = yield d**** > > print result**** > > ** ** > > Output:**** > > 1**** > > None**** > > ** ** > > Probably we SHOULD NOT think if “d” was or was not yielded before when > using inlineCallbacks..**** > > ** ** > > Are they some workarounds?**** > > ** ** > > _______________________________________________ > Twisted-Python mailing list > Twisted-Python@twistedmatrix.com > http://twistedmatrix.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/twisted-python > > -- cheers lvh
_______________________________________________ Twisted-Python mailing list Twisted-Python@twistedmatrix.com http://twistedmatrix.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/twisted-python
