as I predicted once you use it, await/async infests all calls/funcdefs, and has now become pointless line-noise that you need to remember to write or you will get into trouble, but serves no discernable semantic, syntactic or logical function other than making you type more.
solution: write a transpiler that inserts await/async into all calls/funcdefs On Sun, 3 Dec 2017 at 12:01, Steven Mascaro <[email protected]> wrote: > Sorry for making this request now (rather than when async/await was first > being formulated), but real-world use has led me to think some things could > benefit from a slightly different syntax. I also apologise if this has been > raised/discussed before, I wasn't able to find it. The proposal is most > quickly explained with an example. > > Current: > > class RemoteService { > async init() { ... } > async setProp(id, val) { ...; return this } > async getProp(id) { return ... } > async runInBackground() { ... } > } > > async function remoteExample() { > let remote = new RemoteService(); > await remote.init(); > await (await remote.setProp('a', 1)).setProp('b', 2); > remote.runInBackground(); > let val = await remote.getProp('a'); > return val; > } > > Proposed: > > class RemoteService { > await init() { ... } > await setProp(id, val) { ...; return this } > await getProp(id) { return ... } > await runInBackground() { ... } > } > > await function remoteExample() { > let remote = new RemoteService(); > remote.init(); > remote.setProp('a', 1).setProp('b', 2); > async remote.runInBackground(); > let val = remote.getProp('a'); > return val; > } > > Why: > > Running things in a genuinely asynchronous way is actually *unusual*. The > current async/await syntax (which I think should still stay) is the exact > reverse of what fits the probable use cases. Missing the 'await' keyword > (particularly on functions/methods that don't return a value) causes all > sorts of hard to track down bugs. I myself didn't realise this until I (and > others I work with) started making intense use of async/await. > > The new proposed syntax above is obviously much simpler and would be very > hard to get wrong. By contrast, the original syntax has proven surprisingly > difficult to get consistently right. Even now with quite a lot of practice, > I'm occasionally forgetting an await here and there. In addition, patterns > like chaining get ugly *very* quickly. (Although I guess that could also be > fixed with a method-friendly async call syntax.) > > If the proposed syntax were available in addition to the current syntax, > you could apply whichever keyword in the function declaration is most > likely applicable at call sites. e.g. runInBackground could be declared > 'async' rather than 'await', if you normally expect it to be run in the > background. > > _______________________________________________ > 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
