gh-138072: Small clarifications and phrasing improvements to asyncio HOWTO

[anordin95]

• Issue: Room for clarification and flow improvements in asyncio HOWTO #138072

---

📚 Documentation preview 📚: https://cpython-previews--138073.org.readthedocs.build/en/138073/howto/a-conceptual-overview-of-asyncio.html#a-conceptual-overview-of-asyncio

[bedevere-app]

A Python core developer has requested some changes be made to your pull request before we can consider merging it. If you could please address their requests along with any other requests in other reviews from core developers that would be appreciated.

Once you have made the requested changes, please leave a comment on this pull request containing the phrase I have made the requested changes; please review again. I will then notify any core developers who have left a review that you're ready for them to take another look at this pull request.

[anordin95]

I think all requested changes have been addressed in this PR, besides modifications to the await task and await coroutine section titles requested by @hugovk & @willingc.

For ease of reference, the style guide says: "In the Python documentation, the use of sentence case in section titles is preferable, but consistency within a unit is more important than following this rule.".
I think it's fair to say these titles are consistent with the broader unit title: await.

Additionally, I think the use of "preferable" above implies there can be reasonable cases that ignore this guidance. I personally prefer the titles as they are now, for the reasons enumerated here.

With that in mind, I wonder if leaving them as is would be amenable for folks?

[hugovk]

Please do rename them to "Awaiting tasks" and "Awaiting coroutines".

For ease of reference, the style guide says: "In the Python documentation, the use of sentence case in section titles is preferable, but consistency within a unit is more important than following this rule.".
I think it's fair to say these titles are consistent with the broader unit title: await.

That's referring to the await keyword, so is lowercase. Should it be in code formatting, and/or reworded?

The next sentence of the devguide:

If you add a section to a chapter where most sections are in title case, you can either convert all titles to sentence case or use the dominant style in the new section title.

Well, the rest is already in sentence case, let's stick to it.

[anordin95]

For reference, I interpreted the style guide as providing some leeway and more generally I think it can make sense to sometimes ignore strict adherence to style guides, in this case, for the sake of content/flow.

Either way, it seems my arguments fell short and failed to sway minds! I'll go ahead and change the section titles as requested.

P.S. The same idea regarding await came up in the original PR. Making it a code-block means it will be bolded in the table of contents on the sidebar, so we decided to leave it as is.

[anordin95]

Hey folks, I believe all comments have now been addressed.

@willingc, @kumaraditya303, @ZeroIntensity would you mind taking another pass?

[ZeroIntensity]

Mostly LGTM

[ZeroIntensity]

I think "meaningful" has a positive connotation here, which we don't want. How about this?

Suggested change

	overhead can add up to a meaningful performance drag.
	overhead can add up to a major performance drag.

[anordin95]

Just to make sure I understand, the concern is that "meaningful" has a positive connotation, which may confuse a reader into thinking we're saying a "performance drag" is a good thing, yeah?

I think "major" would be overstating the effect. The goal was to describe something that's non-trivial or non-negligible. For what it's worth, I think "meaningful" can be used either way e.g. "a meaningful decline in sales", "a meaningful improvement in test scores", etc. Regardless, would switching to "non-trivial" be amenable?

[ZeroIntensity]

To me, "non-trivial" would imply "complex", which doesn't really fit here. I'd prefer "non-negligible".

[anordin95]

Done 👍

[anordin95]

@kumaraditya303, I believe this PR was modified to address your requested changes. Could you update that "requested changes" status so we can unblock this PR?

outdated

[anordin95]

@ZeroIntensity, @willingc - Would y'all mind giving this another pass or approving if it looks good? :)

[ZeroIntensity]

LGTM

[willingc]

Thanks @anordin95. I'm going to go ahead and merge. 🎉