allow for Job class to have an __await__ method

[Vizonex]

I thought it would be a smart idea if the Job class could be something that could be optionally awaited on simply by just calling await in cases were code such as await job.wait() is not feasible and where we know in advance that we don't need a timeout variable inplace, this would allow for something such as asyncio.gather() to be easily done on a group of jobs to being awaited on rather than having to write a bunch of coroutines beforehand. This would make the job class more task-like since asyncio tasks have this same feature where they can be awaited simply by calling await task for instance. I have also written some unittests as well to for this library that would best demonstrate these examples.

Related issue number

I don't think this is related to any issues however I do believe that this idea would be helpful.

Checklist

• I think the code is well written
• Unit tests for the changes exist
• [] Documentation reflects the changes

[Dreamsorcerer]

Yeah, I think this seems reasonable.

[Dreamsorcerer]

Except for all the issues that arise... So, maybe not..

[asvetlov]

No, it doesn't work this way.
asyncio.gather() requires futures or coroutines, it means that Job should be derived from asyncio.Future.
But job and future have completely different API and serve different roles, let's keep everything as is.