I don't like the `await* []` syntax, it doesn't really tell me what it's doing. I could imagine something like `await.all []` or `await.race []` desugaring to `await Promise.all([])` and `await Promise.race([])`, this could also be expanded to whatever new functionality might be added in the future (assuming await.something could work).
On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 10:37 AM kdex <[email protected]> wrote: > Personally, I wouldn't mind such an operator, as I feel that the use of > `Promise.all` clearly > outweighs all other `Promise` combinators, but this could be an > opinionated view. > > IIRC, that even was up for standards discussion at some point (being > called `await*` instead > of `await`). I'm not sure what ever happened to that. > > On Wednesday, October 26, 2016 1:27:28 AM CEST Olivier Lalonde wrote: > > Right it makes sense, should have thought about that! An `awaitAll` (or > > other syntax) could be nice but it seems the general opinion is against. > > > > On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 1:22 AM, kdex <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > It's especially beneficial for designing APIs where you don't care > about if > > > users pass you a `Promise` or the actual data to work with. > > > > > > Imagine a scenario where you would like to remove a set of files: > > > > > > ```js > > > async function remove(filesArray) { > > > const files = await filesArray; > > > /* … work with `files` here …*/ > > > } > > > ``` > > > > > > In the scenario above, you could pass an array of files, or a `Promise` > > > that resolves > > > to said array; the function accepts both. > > > > > > On Wednesday, October 26, 2016 1:03:37 AM CEST Olivier Lalonde wrote: > > > > I didn't realize `await` could be used on non-`Promise`s, never > mind. I > > > > wonder why that is, seems strange. Maybe so that async functions > could be > > > > more easily swapped out with sync ones in code? I do think > `Promise.all` > > > > should deserve special treatment because it is so common, unlike > > > > Promise.race (who uses that seriously?) and future combinators. But > I'm > > > not > > > > sure it is worth introducing new syntax for. > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 12:33 AM, Jordan Harband <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Your suggestion would preclude having a promise for an array > (exactly > > > what > > > > > `Promise.all` returns). > > > > > > > > > > If you want `await` syntax for `Promise.all`, you'd need different > > > syntax > > > > > for it - and then, what about `Promise.race`? What about other > future > > > > > combinators? > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 12:25 AM, Olivier Lalonde < > [email protected]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> I don't think so, what do you mean? > > > > >> > > > > >> On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 12:22 AM, Raul-Sebastian Mihăilă < > > > > >> [email protected]> wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >>> Then Promise.resolve([p1, p2]) should be like Promise.all([p1, > p2]) ? > > > > >>> > > > > >>> _______________________________________________ > > > > >>> es-discuss mailing list > > > > >>> [email protected] > > > > >>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> -- > > > > >> - Oli > > > > >> > > > > >> Oli Lalonde > > > > >> http://www.syskall.com <-- connect with me! > > > > >> > > > > >> _______________________________________________ > > > > >> es-discuss mailing list > > > > >> [email protected] > > > > >> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > es-discuss mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
