* It was dropped for a number of reasons, including confusion with `yield *`, and there being no way to provide syntactic support for Promise.race, or other future combinators.
On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 4:18 AM, Matthew Robb <[email protected]> wrote: > 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/ba298c7de6bbf1c36448f71 >> 8be6a762b >> >> >> >> 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 > >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
