Brendan Eich wrote:
> But to recap the TC39 meeting discussion, we do not believe we can add 
> =>* or =>! -- the latter is arrow with a unary logical negation 
> expression as the body. Other places to put the * and ! are 
> problematic due to ASI. So what exactly are we gonna do for async 
> arrows, if anything? We said no/defer to generator arrows.

To say a bit more, if we don't want 'yield' in the body of an arrow to 
imply that that arrow function is a generator function, then the same 
argument seems to apply to 'await'. So we need a sigil or equivalent. 
But =>! is at least as infeasible as =>*. So perhaps we cannot reserve 
'await' in ES6 arrows.

/be

To say a bit more, if we don't want 'yield' in the body of an arrow to 
imply that that arrow function is a generator function, then the same 
argument seems to apply to 'await'. So we need a sigil or equivalent. 
But =>! is at least as infeasible as =>*. So perhaps we cannot reserve 
'await' in ES6 arrows.