Comments on: Wacky idea for python coroutines

By: Matt Wilson

Matt Wilson — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 18:48:42 +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.

By: Matt Wilson

Matt Wilson — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 14:48:42 +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.

By: Calvin

Calvin — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 05:32:19 +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.

By: Matt Wilson

Matt Wilson — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 21:37:24 +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.

By: Florian

Florian — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 21:17:22 +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.

By: Matt Wilson

Matt Wilson — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 18:56:18 +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?

By: Florian

Florian — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 17:01:59 +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.