Feature Proposal - async variables (like thread local storage from C)

Hey It's my first attempt to contribute to ECMAScript so would love your feedback if I better off change how I go about it. The problem I want to highlight is that besides argument passing it is impossible to have any information associated with a flow of async code as any async code will create

Re: Feature Proposal - async variables (like thread local storage from C)

I'm pretty sure this is Zones On 11 Mar 2018 15:35, "Guy Margalit" wrote: > Hey > > It's my first attempt to contribute to ECMAScript so would love your > feedback if I better off change how I go about it. > > The problem I want to highlight is that besides argument passing it is > impossible to

Re: Feature Proposal - async variables (like thread local storage from C)

Yes, it is. Thanks for referring me to the right point. Anything I can do to help advance that proposal? On Mar 11, 2018 5:40 PM, "Thomas Grainger" wrote: I'm pretty sure this is Zones On 11 Mar 2018 15:35, "Guy Margalit" wrote: > Hey > > It's my first attempt to contribute to ECMAScript so w

Re: Re: Explainer/Spec: Smart pipelines

Thanks for the feedback, Peter and Naveen. *** @Peter: > It looks like this is different to the existing pipeline proposal in > essentially only one way, in that it includes the # token (or lexical topic > as you call it). I like that the proposal addresses await and other unary > operators b

Re: Re: Explainer/Spec: Smart pipelines

> To clarify: The way that bare style and topic style are distinguished are not by the absence/presence of a topic reference. Bare style has a simple and strict syntax: any identifiers, separated by `.`s, optionally preceded by `new` or `await`. So `x['hello']` would not be valid? Seems pretty inc

Re: Re: Explainer/Spec: Smart pipelines

On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 2:36 PM, Peter Jaszkowiak wrote: >> To clarify: The way that bare style and topic style are distinguished are >> not by the absence/presence of a topic reference. Bare style has a simple >> and strict syntax: any identifiers, separated by `.`s, optionally preceded >> by `ne

Re: Re: Explainer/Spec: Smart pipelines

Thanks again for the reply, Peter. I’m a little confused by your latest questions, so I’ll try to clarify the questions at a time. > > [me] To clarify: The way that bare style and topic style are distinguished > > are not by the absence/presence of a topic reference. Bare style has a > > simple

Re: Re: Explainer/Spec: Smart pipelines

On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 4:44 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 2:36 PM, Peter Jaszkowiak wrote: >>> optionally preceded by `new` or `await` >> >> This seems very arbitrary and _not_ forwards-compatible. > > I agree with arbitrary, tho I think new/await ends up being > reasonable