One major difference I can see is that the earliest async/await proposals included `async *` which was eventually dropped for no practical reason other than it seemed to add bloat to a spec that AT THE TIME looked like it would be hard to push through the process. History tells a different story for async/await and it may be better that it was actually left out initially it's hard to say. What I can say is the use case has been a part of the discussion from the very beginning for awaiting a list of things.
There really are two phases to your spec. A subset that can apply immediately to the existing promise-based abstraction and a larger extension of that which could apply to a wider range of async models such as Observable. I think both are well represented but it would be helpful to see them explicitly broken down into those two distinct sets. - Matthew Robb On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 7:03 AM, Isiah Meadows <[email protected]> wrote: > I'll note that async functions had a similar thing going on, too. Most > third-party libraries had most issues taken care of, but what landed > in the spec was only a fraction of what most libraries provided. The > Observable proposal is turning out to be similar in this respect. > ----- > > Isiah Meadows > [email protected] > > > On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 6:23 AM, Matthew Robb <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Isiah I think there is a lot of value in the work you have done here. I > > think it would be useful to see this broken down in a way that makes > solving > > the Promise cases in a way that would be forward compatible with > Observers > > front and center. Right now it feels optimistically speculative because > the > > approach is treating Promise and Observable as equal edges to the problem > > which may be true but today we have under facilitated Promise > abstractions > > and no one is feeling any pain/loss around missing Observable support > (yet). > > > > Does any of that make sense? > > > > > > - Matthew Robb > > > > On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 8:24 AM, Isiah Meadows <[email protected]> > > wrote: > >> > >> See: https://gist.github.com/isiahmeadows/ > ba298c7de6bbf1c36448f718be6a762b > >> > >> TL;DR: I've created a proposal to enable modelling of parallelism and > >> non-linear control flow, to interoperate with the non-determinism of > >> Promises and Observables. I drew inspiration from non-von Neumann > >> paradigms in creating the primitive operations. I'm seeking feedback > >> for potential improvements and just overall feelings on the idea. > >> > >> Obviously, this is blocked on the Observable proposal [1] getting > >> completed, and may need edited accordingly. And I've already proposed > >> a similar thing [2] in their repo, but not quite to this scale. > >> > >> [1]: https://github.com/tc39/proposal-observable > >> [2]: https://github.com/tc39/proposal-observable/issues/141 > >> > >> ----- > >> > >> Isiah Meadows > >> [email protected] > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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
