<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 9:40 AM, Pierre Jaury <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:pierre@jaury.eu" target="_blank">pierre@jaury.eu</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hey everyone,<br>As a matter of fact, this is not the case (the first generation of the<br>
Deferred object will return its actual current state but later<br>
generations will return `None`). Because a Deferred object generation<br>
from an inlineCallbacks-decorated function does not allow for anything<br>
but waiting for the Deferred object to fire and returning its state, it<br>
would probably not harm to forward this state to the next callback as<br>
well. Something like:<br>...<br></blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">would probably do the trick and allow for complex scenarios where the<br>
same Deferred object is generated multiple times by different functions<br>
before being fired.<br>
<br>
As I am not an accomplished Twisted hacker, I cannot say if this kind of<br>
change would harm or break any code out there. Yet it seems to me that<br>
according to inlineCallbacks behavior, it is very unlikely to have any<br>
consequence at all but improving (extending at least) inlineCallbacks<br>
behavior.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div style>I think it's a reasonable change to make, and I don't foresee any problems with it, so I think it's fine to submit a bug about it. But I do question the architecture that needs to make use of it. I would probably avoid scenarios like that in my own code.</div>
<div style><br></div></div>-- <br>Christopher Armstrong<br><a href="http://radix.twistedmatrix.com/">http://radix.twistedmatrix.com/</a><br><a href="http://planet-if.com/">http://planet-if.com/</a><br><br>
</div></div>