[Async-sig] A possible tiny step towards event loop interoperability

[Nathaniel Smith]

On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 5:07 PM, Guido van Rossum <guido at python.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 3:26 PM, Nathaniel Smith <njs at pobox.com> wrote:
>> Convincing everyone to agree on a single event loop API sounds hard.
>
> Really? That was exactly the purpose of asyncio and PEP 484 (and Glyph
> helped a lot, so I kind of feel he has to some extent endorsed that
> design).

Sorry, that was partly referencing some discussion that happened at
PyCon before the mailing list existed... Tornado and Curio both
implement (partially) incompatible coroutine runners, and one of the
questions that came up was that people are worried about this (for
obvious reasons). I don't have a proposal for fixing this entirely,
but this proposal seemed like a simple step that might at least make
it possible in principle to write libraries that handled multiple
coroutine runners.

-n

-- 
Nathaniel J. Smith -- https://vorpus.org