However, if `await.all { ... }` were to mean "wait for all non-awaited
async function calls made within this block to complete before proceeding",
as I suggested earlier, I think that could satisfy determinism for "await"
wherever it is used, and satisfy the original motivation:
```
await.all {
for (const item of items) {
doTheThingAsync(item);
}
}
```
Notice I have omitted `await` inside the loop. Like current JavaScript,
that causes parallel execution, so no change on that front, from a
determinism perspective. So determinism is not hurt by `await.all`. Rather,
it guarantees completion before going further.
In an earlier example (paraphrase-coded as I forgot the names):
```
let x, y;
await.all {
x = getXAsync();
y = getYAsync();
}
processXAndY(x, y);
```
I think the benefit of this syntax appears more stark with the looped
(first) example, as current JavaScript requires building an array in the
loop to subsequently pass to `Promise.all`, which I think is a little more
difficult to conceptualize than the `await.all { ... }` way of doing it.
The 2nd example is arguably better than current JavaScript too,
particularly because the coder doesn't have to be very smart with
destructuring in light of understanding the "Promise.all" return type, etc.
In other words, less cognitive overhead, which I think is a net positive.
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 at 13:44, Tom Boutell <t...@apostrophecms.com> wrote:
> I am very sympathetic to pitches to allow more common cases for promise
> libraries to be written in an "awaitful" syntax without thinking explicitly
> about promises.
>
> Howeever I think that changing the meaning of the semicolon in a
> particular context has too much potential for confusion. As others have
> said, parallel execution is different, and it should look and feel
> different. The most basic assumption a developer makes (consecutive lines
> of code run consecutively) is difficult to get away from; that's why we
> introduced "await" in the first place, to bring back the ability to write
> deterministic code with consecutive statements. Which sounds like a
> reasonable ask, when it's put that way. (:
>
> I did propose this recently:
>
> for (const item of items concurrency 5) {
> await doTheThing(item);
> }
>
> However in this case I'm not talking about consecutive statements, I'm
> only talking about rules for simultaneously (in the sense of async, not
> threads) running more than one instance of the block. So I'm not proposing
> that we change the meaning of the semicolon(s) *within* the block in a way
> that could mean that if you're looking at half the code in the middle you
> would be likely to fundamentally misunderstand its operation.
>
> I think that risk - that you can't tell what a semicolon means without
> reference to the outer context - is what makes your proposal a bridge too
> far for me.
>
>
> --
>
> THOMAS BOUTELL | CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICER
> APOSTROPHECMS | apostrophecms.com | he/him/his
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss@mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
