The two code samples you posted are equivalent (modulo the obvious
mistake). AFAIU there is still only a single parsing pass for template
strings.
On Tuesday, 12 January 2016, /#!/JoePea wrote:
> The thing with template strings is that they are used at runtime. This
> could be slow if we're comp
Implicit cancellation doesn't make sense if it involves a throw.
Furthermore, implicit cancellation would never happen for your example
- the 'await' clearly depends on the result of the operation, so it is
in use and it would not make sense for it to be implicitly cancelled.
For the record, every
>
> For async functions, it would mean that any await expression could
> potentially throw a CancelError
Cancellation does not necessarily need to use `throw`, `return` is often
more apt. I find.
I would also recommend splitting the idea of cancellation into: abort
semantics, and ignorance seman
3 matches
Mail list logo