[Python-3000] Futures in Python 3000

[Andy Sy]

Greg Ewing wrote:

> There's a lot more to this than syntax. The oddities
> surrounding Python generators are mostly due to their
> "one-level-deep" nature, i.e. they're not full coroutines.
> And there are deep implementation reasons for that.

Does this mean that Py3K intends to reuse major portions of
Python 2.x's implementation?

If Py3K intends to break backwards compatibility, doesn't this
mean that if a simpler and more inclusive, more general
asynchronous mechanism than generators is possible, then there
should be no qualms about dropping or supplementing the latter?
Or would this be enough of a difference that it would make for
'a different language'?

I had the impression that replacing old abstractions that have
acquired cruft with better new ones was one of the main goals of
Py3K.

Not that I don't find generators cool, but there seem to be some
pretty basic asynchronous stuff (blocking on I/O) that they do
not address as elegantly as one would like.