[Python-ideas] More general "for" loop handling

[Greg]

On 1/05/2015 5:31 a.m., Guido van Rossum wrote:
> Ah. But 'async for' is not meant to introduce parallelism or
> concurrency.

This kind of confusion is why I'm not all that enamoured of using
the word "async" the way PEP 492 does.

But since there seems to be prior art for it in other languages
now, I suppose there are at least some people out there who
won't be confused by it.

-- 
Greg