Close sub-generators even if top level generator was asynchronous. - #96040
Closed
markshannon wants to merge 1 commit into
Closed
Close sub-generators even if top level generator was asynchronous.#96040markshannon wants to merge 1 commit into
markshannon wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member
Sorry, something went wrong.
brandtbucher
left a comment
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Has this been abandoned, or are you still considering it for 3.13? I agree that this makes the code a bit simpler, but I find it hard to reason about whether the correctness is preserved or not (presumably there's some reason it currently works this way).
So I would lean towards not changing it, unless we have a compelling reason to.
Sorry, something went wrong.
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
I think this is correct.
It seems odd that whether a sub-generator is closed or not depends on whether an async generator exists higher up the stack.
@brandtbucher thoughts?
Will need news and issue, if we agree this is correct.