What about special handling for Maps? Maybe something like
```
const requests = new Map();
requests.set('reqA', fetch('...'));
requests.set('reqB', fetch('...'));
const responses = await Promise.all(requests);
console.log(
responses.get('reqA'),
responses.get('reqB'),
);
```
...which would
On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 1:15 AM Andrea Giammarchi
wrote:
> Again, the `await?` is sugar for the following:
>
> ```js
> const value = await? callback();
>
> // as sugar for
> let value = callback();
> if ('then' in value)
> value = await value;
> ```
Okay, so that has the "you can't predict
Promise.all(Object.values(myObjWithPromiseValues)).then(...)
On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 10:22 AM Jordan Harband wrote:
> The current API accepts an *iterable*, which means any object that has
> `Symbol.iterator`, such as an array or a Set.
>
> Throwing when it receives a non-iterable object is an
The current API accepts an *iterable*, which means any object that has
`Symbol.iterator`, such as an array or a Set.
Throwing when it receives a non-iterable object is an important tool to
catch bugs. If Promise.all was made to accept a non-iterable object as
well, I suspect many bugs would go
Back when async/await was introduced I struggeled quite a bit with promises
arrays that have conditional promises. RxJS is moving from array only
support in theirs operators to objects too, there seems to be an actual
trend going on. Is there any reason
Again, the `await?` is sugar for the following:
```js
const value = await? callback();
// as sugar for
let value = callback();
if ('then' in value)
value = await value;
```
but since I've stated already I have no interest anymore in this proposal,
we can also stop explaining to each others
6 matches
Mail list logo
