await on synchronous functions

[Andrea Giammarchi]

Meaning putting a Promise in a chain of promises is a point of no return so
I've never seen/heard/imagined a case where you have a promise and suddenly
you refactor that to be synchronous.

The specific "Promise gonna  Promise" was actually mentioning another
thread about cancelability and the fact "Promises are Promises and  should
just Promise" :-)

Sorry for the confusion

On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 10:41 PM, Mark S. Miller <erights at google.com> wrote:

> Hi Andrea, what do you mean by "Promise must Promise"? I've never seen
> this phrase before.
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 11:35 AM, Andrea Giammarchi <
> andrea.giammarchi at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > Think about a large program where you refactor a single async function
>> to no longer be async
>>
>> did that ever happened in the history of logic? I am actually curious to
>> understand a single valid case where that would be a solution to any
>> problem.
>>
>> Apologies if I can't see your point but we've been talking about "Promise
>> must Promise" so much this answer was absolutely unexpected.
>>
>> Thanks for any sort of clarification
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 7:27 PM, Tom Van Cutsem <tomvc.be at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 2015-07-17 19:41 GMT+02:00 Andrea Giammarchi <
>>> andrea.giammarchi at gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> regards,
>>> Tom
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Just my quick thoughts
>>>>
>>>> Best Regards
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 6:33 PM, Kevin Smith <zenparsing at gmail.com>
>>>> 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 mozilla.org
>>>>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> es-discuss mailing list
>>>> es-discuss at mozilla.org
>>>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> es-discuss mailing list
>> es-discuss at mozilla.org
>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>     Cheers,
>     --MarkM
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20150717/701887b6/attachment.html>