I agree that there is no difference between generator-returning arrows and promise-returning arrows. Using the earlier type-ish notation, where `=>` is a mapping to `T`, `=*>` would be a mapping to `Generator<T>`, just like `=!>` would be a mapping to `Promise<T>`.
________________________________ From: es-discuss <[email protected]> on behalf of Mark S. Miller <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 13:17 To: Alex Russell Cc: Kevin Smith; Brendan Eich; es-discuss Subject: Re: Reserving await within Arrow Functions Putting aside my immediate esthetic reaction, I suggest we consider one of =>, *=>, !=> =>, =*>, =!> =>, *>, !> Which do you hate least? Btw, Kevin, I have read and do not understand your argument about why we would not want generator arrow functions but would want async arrow functions. If we could agree on syntax, I still want both. On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 10:11 AM, Alex Russell <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: If you can't indicate that the arrow itself is async somehow (either by prefixing it with "deferred" or "async" or using a variant of the arrow itself, e.g. "~=>"), then you get into the issue Brendan describes when you allow "await" inside the body. On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 10:07 AM, Kevin Smith <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Banning await here is only a solution if you're also not going to ban an async descriptor on the arrow expression. THAT is the mistake. Not sure I follow - can you elaborate? What is an "async descriptor on the arrow expression"? _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss -- Cheers, --MarkM
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
