On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 7:57 AM, Andy Wingo <[email protected]> wrote: > Comprehensions match ES6 very well as it is, without considering the > possible addition of parallelism. They even match up well if we add the > other dimension of asynchronous comprehensions -- i.e. [for x of await y > z], (for x of await y z). I don't think it's unreasonable to expect PJS > to also extend the syntax in this way -- we end up with 2³ squares in > our "matrix" -- eager vs lazy, sync vs async, parallel vs not -- and > that seems fine to me.
Not that another alternative is transactional parallelism, where await ends up marking atomicity boundaries. Separate iterations of [for x of await y z] can execute in parallel, protected by a transaction mechanism (STM/HTM/hybrid/etc) to ensure that the semantics match a serial execution. This is in many ways a better match for JavaScript's existing concurrency model -- which programmers seem to prefer over an explicit locks+threads model. So, for one, I wouldn't want to put the PJS cart before the JS horse. --scott _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
