Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is91.11111% with4 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 61.86%. Comparing base (c8d8e64) to head (c0446ad).

@@            Coverage Diff             @@##             main    #3556      +/-   ##==========================================- Coverage   61.87%   61.86%   -0.01%==========================================  Files          85       85                Lines       10134    10137       +3     ==========================================+ Hits         6270     6271       +1- Misses       3864     3866       +2

I'm fine with this, as long as we're OK making the implementation detail thatArray is backend by anAsyncArray part of the public API.

I would also pretty strongly encourage people using._async_array to consider whether they can use AsyncArray directly. Maybe they can't (because they in turn are offering a sync API).

I'm fine with this, as long as we're OK making the implementation detail that Array is backend by an AsyncArray part of the public API.

Another option would be to create ato_async function that could in theory be future proofed (although theproperty does the same thing) in the sense that we can remove the "is backed byAsyncArray" aspect of the implementation while maintaining API compat by implementing a "reopen" scheme under theasync_array property/to_async function (however it is implemented).

I would also pretty strongly encourage people using ._async_array to consider whether they can use AsyncArray directly. Maybe they can't (because they in turn are offering a sync API).

Agreed! I think the "offering a sync API" thing is the core of it, though.