good point about the IIFEs, added some notes on what to fixl: https://beta.observablehq.com/@shaunlebron/proposal-generators-and-async-functions-in-clojurescript#blockers
> [core.async] is a much more powerful abstraction which can do a lot of things async/await can't and anything that does can easily be achieved with core.async and a few helper functions/macros not quite! core.async doesn't allow you to cancel a go-block (to my knowledge), which JS allows. I added a section on this: https://beta.observablehq.com/@shaunlebron/proposal-generators-and-async-functions-in-clojurescript#coreasync On Thursday, May 24, 2018 at 4:44:29 PM UTC-5, Thomas Heller wrote: > > I'm generally in favor of "embracing the host" but both generators and > async/await would probably require substantial rewrites of core parts of > the compiler. It it not just about adding a small *** or *async* keyword > somewhere. The compiler will generally emit anonymous functions at various > places to ensure proper scoping and this can pretty easily break > async/generator functions. Given that you'd emitting ES6+ anways however > you could replace those with proper block-scoped lets though. Of course > that is not a reason to not do it, just don't underestimate how much work > this would be. > > I certainly looks like the JS world is adopting async/await but given the > rate of change in that ecosystem that might change again when the next > thing comes along. Given that the React folks decided to implement a pretty > substantial feature based on throwing promises I guess they are here to > stay for a while though. > > I do not think that this compares in any way to core.async however. It is > a much more powerful abstraction which can do a lot of things async/await > can't and anything that does can easily be achieved with core.async and a > few helper functions/macros. Yes, core.async is not perfect either but > someone could work on fixing the kinks. > > I guess I agree that we should eventually support async/await + generators > for the sake of full interop but not because of "issues" with core.async. > > > On Thursday, May 24, 2018 at 6:58:38 PM UTC+2, Shaun LeBron wrote: >> >> thanks for posting this question. I asked about it a few months ago on >> slack and apparently it has come up a few times. There is resistance (for >> good reason), but here's a proposal I put together that might get >> discussion going: >> >> >> https://beta.observablehq.com/@shaunlebron/proposal-generators-and-async-functions-in-clojurescript >> >> in summary, core.async doesn't solve all the problems, can be harder to >> debug, and using the promise api directly can be unwieldy. but there are >> arguments against including the extra syntax. >> >> feedback appreciated! >> >> >> On Wednesday, May 23, 2018 at 11:44:06 PM UTC-5, Philos Kim wrote: >>> >>> I wonder when the async/await feature in ES8 will be introduced in >>> ClojureScript. >>> >>> Of course, I know there is core.async in ClojureScript but I hope that >>> the async/await feature in ES8 will be supported in ClojureScript as soon >>> as possible. >>> >>> Does anyone know when it will be supported? >>> >> -- Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ClojureScript" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojurescript+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to clojurescript@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/clojurescript.
