Pywikibot has a feature that allows you to run the request in the background. However, I feel the name "async" is kind of misleading, because it implies that it does something with the asyncio library or that it returns a coroutine, but the parameter does neither. Instead, calling it something like "background" makes more sense since that's what it's doing -- running the request in the background.
Description
Description
Event Timeline
Comment Actions
There are similar words and expressions in the world, that's how we llive. Both come fom asynchronous, for the same reason, and we have used async since the Pywikipedia times. "Implies" is a bit strong for "one might even think of". I don't see the validity of the reason. Many old users would be confused by this change.
Comment Actions
I guess that makes sense. My intro to Python programming was the discord.py library, which runs exclusively on asyncio, and so I had thought that async made the library use coroutines.
Comment Actions
Now you know. :-)
My intro to Python programming was Pywikipedia. Shall we rename asyncio because of that? :-)
Comment Actions
https://superfastpython.com/threadpoolexecutor-vs-asyncio/#Similarities_Between_ThreadPoolExecutor_and_AsyncIO states that
as such, it would be just as valid to say both ThreadPoolExecutor and AsyncIO support asynchronous programming.
Furthermore coroutines are not necessarily executed asynchronous/concurrent e.g. update_linktrails script was written with coroutines in contrary with generators. Coroutines are data consumers while generators are data producers.
I propose to decline this request.