[issue24017] Implemenation of the PEP 492 - Coroutines with async and await syntax

[Nick Coghlan]

Nick Coghlan added the comment:

Given that tp_call is just "ternaryfunc", my guess would be "because when the iterator protocol was added, someone went with function-pointer-type-per-slot rather than function-pointer-type-per-call-signature".

We *are* a little inconsistent here (e.g. "reprfunc" could also just use the "unaryfunc" signature), but Stefan's right that that isn't a good reason to *add* to the inconsistency.

----------

_______________________________________
Python tracker <report at bugs.python.org>
<http://bugs.python.org/issue24017>
_______________________________________