await on synchronous functions

Tom Van Cutsem at
Fri Jul 17 18:27:31 UTC 2015

2015-07-17 19:41 GMT+02:00 Andrea Giammarchi <andrea.giammarchi at>:

> If I might, if there's one thing that has never particularly shone in JS,
> that is consistency.
> I see only two possibilities here: 1) it throws with non Promises 2) it
> "Promisify" anything that's not a Promise as if it was a
> `Promise.resolve(1)` ... but since there's too much magic in the second
> point, I'd rather stick with the first one.

I would be highly in favor of (2). Think about a large program where you
refactor a single async function to no longer be async. Then I see no
reason why I should be forced to refactor all of its callers to remove the
await keyword. Going from sync to async requires refactoring because you're
introducing new potential interleaving hazards, but any code that is
already prepared to work with async functions (or promises in general)
should work equally fine on immediately resolved promises.


> Just my quick thoughts
> Best Regards
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 6:33 PM, Kevin Smith <zenparsing at> wrote:
>> I know the spec for this isn't finalized, but what is the current
>>> direction for the behaviour when await is used on a function that is not
>>> marked async and doesn't return a Promise? Should it run immediately or
>>> wait for the next turn of the event loop?
>> More generally, the question is: what should await do for non-promises?
>>     await 1;
>> Should it force a job to be queued?
>> _______________________________________________
>> es-discuss mailing list
>> es-discuss at
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the es-discuss mailing list