Yes, I’ll be happy to provide a concrete example.
Let’s say I am creating a CLI using readline.
```js
const readline = require('readline');
const interface = readline.createInterface({
input: process.stdin,
output: process.stdout
});
async function run() {
var name = '';
var base = 0;
console.log('** Bienvenido al Calculador de Área **');
name = await requestInput(‘What’s your name?\n');
console.log(`Hello, ${name}!`);
}
function requestInput(question) {
return new Promise(function(resolve) {
interface.question(question, function(input) {
resolve(input);
})
})
}
run();
```
Instead of defining a wrapper function that returns a promise, I would like to
define the promise at the same time like this:
```js
const readline = require('readline');
const interface = readline.createInterface({
input: process.stdin,
output: process.stdout
});
async function run() {
console.log('** Bienvenido al Calculador de Área **');
const name = await requestInput(‘What’s your name?\n');
console.log(`Hello, ${name}!`);
}
promise requestInput(resolve, reject, question) {
interface.question(question, function(input) {
resolve(input);
})
}
run();
```
__
Jorge Téllez
+52 1 81 2567 8257
@novohispano <http://twitter.com/novohispano>
> On Nov 6, 2017, at 9:33 AM, Jonathan Barronville <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> From the example provided, as someone who uses promises a lot, I’m not sure
> I’m sold on the need for this either. Maybe you could provide some more
> concrete examples, Jorge?
>
>
> P.S. Proposals like this are why JavaScript should’ve been a LISP ;p …
>
> On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 10:28 AM, Isiah Meadows <[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> I'm not convinced of the need. Promises are already sufficient, and in
> general use, I rarely use the constructor outside of adapting
> callback-related code or other lower-level cases.
>
> Also, keep in mind, most such promise-returning functions do have arguments,
> which this proposal seems to miss.
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 6, 2017, 10:23 Jorge Téllez <[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> I would like to propose a new syntax for promises for the next ECMAScript.
>
> It is common to define promises in the following way:
>
> function promiseFunction() {
> return new Promise(resolve, reject) {
> resolve(someValue);
> };
> }
>
> In the previous example, I am declaring a function so that I can access the
> promise throughout.
>
> I would like propose a simpler syntax to remove this redundancy:
>
> promise promiseFunction(resolve, reject) {
> resolve(someValue);
> }
>
> This will make the promise declaration easier to read in a similar fashion as
> the new class syntax made it easier to declare prototypes.
>
> __
> Jorge Téllez
> +52 1 81 2567 8257 <tel:+52%201%2081%202567%208257>
> @novohispano <http://twitter.com/novohispano>
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
> <https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss>
>
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
> <https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss>
>
>
>
>
> --
> - Jonathan
>
> —
>
> Life is a game and we’re all just high density pixels.
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
