domenic at domenicdenicola.com (2014-01-29T15:57:44.035Z)
Bradley Meck wrote:
> Is that true even though then should fire after the generator unwinds
> its stack?
True if .then always runs in a later turn -- sorry.
Still, my point stands: you are not using task.js-like
scheduler/combinator approach for an apples-to-apples comparison with
await. If you do, then we're down to the obligation of a task.js
download, and some syntactic sugar.
```js
// assume req in scope
spawn(function*() {
try {
var session = yieldlogin(req); // wait until the promise resolves
gotoProfile(session);
}
catch (e) {
printError(e);
gotoLogin();
}
// implicit return undefined
});
```
BTW, in ES7, no "use await"; will be needed ;-).
If you want to control when the task starts, you'd use new Task. If you
want to send req, you'd control starting via t = new
Task(function*(){...}) and call t.next(req). Hope this is all clear from
http://taskjs.org/ and the code.
> I am using regenerator right now while playing with this stuff.
Cool -- can you try task.js?
Bradley Meck wrote: > Is that true even though then should fire after the generator unwinds > its stack? True if .then always runs in a later turn -- sorry. Still, my point stands: you are not using task.js-like scheduler/combinator approach for an apples-to-apples comparison with await. If you do, then we're down to the obligation of a task.js download, and some syntactic sugar. // assume req in scope spawn(function*() { try { var session = yieldlogin(req); // wait until the promise resolves gotoProfile(session); } catch (e) { printError(e); gotoLogin(); } // implicit return undefined }); BTW, in ES7, no "use await"; will be needed ;-). If you want to control when the task starts, you'd use new Task. If you want to send req, you'd control starting via t = new Task(function*(){...}) and call t.next(req). Hope this is all clear from http://taskjs.org/ and the code. > I am using regenerator right now while playing with this stuff. Cool -- can you try task.js? /be