Async iteration

# John Lenz (9 years ago)

Two things:

Is there a summary of the motivation for "for-await" and "async iteration" in general?

Has there any discussion in not supporting "var" in "for-await" initializers?

Two things:

Is there a summary of the motivation for "for-await" and "async iteration"
in general?

Has there any discussion in not supporting "var" in "for-await"
initializers?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20160314/867b4efd/attachment.html>

# Kevin Smith (9 years ago)

Is there a summary of the motivation for "for-await" and "async iteration" in general?

There's a short section at: tc39/proposal-async-iteration#overview-and-motivation

Has there any discussion in not supporting "var" in "for-await" initializers?

Symmetry with for-of is definitely an important consideration. Is there a particular reason why you think "var" should be disallowed?

>
> Is there a summary of the motivation for "for-await" and "async iteration"
> in general?
>

There's a short section at:
https://github.com/tc39/proposal-async-iteration#overview-and-motivation


> Has there any discussion in not supporting "var" in "for-await"
> initializers?
>

Symmetry with for-of is definitely an important consideration.  Is there a
particular reason why you think "var" should be disallowed?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20160314/578857d1/attachment.html>

# John Lenz (9 years ago)

On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 11:19 AM, Kevin Smith <zenparsing at gmail.com> wrote:

Is there a summary of the motivation for "for-await" and "async iteration"

in general?

There's a short section at: tc39/proposal-async-iteration#overview-and-motivation

Thanks

Has there any discussion in not supporting "var" in "for-await" initializers?

Symmetry with for-of is definitely an important consideration. Is there a particular reason why you think "var" should be disallowed?

There is not a backward compatibility concern and "var" is a smell for all the reasons that "let" was introduced (per-interation bindings don't happen, it isn't scoped to the block). (I'm unclear why "for-of" allows "var" for the same reason). I'm not convinced 100% either way, I was just wondering if it was discussed.

On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 11:19 AM, Kevin Smith <zenparsing at gmail.com> wrote:

> Is there a summary of the motivation for "for-await" and "async iteration"
>> in general?
>>
>
> There's a short section at:
> https://github.com/tc39/proposal-async-iteration#overview-and-motivation
>

Thanks


>
>
>> Has there any discussion in not supporting "var" in "for-await"
>> initializers?
>>
>
> Symmetry with for-of is definitely an important consideration.  Is there a
> particular reason why you think "var" should be disallowed?
>
>
There is not a backward compatibility concern and "var" is a smell for all
the reasons that "let" was introduced (per-interation bindings don't
happen, it isn't scoped to the block).  (I'm unclear why "for-of" allows
"var" for the same reason).     I'm not convinced 100% either way, I was
just wondering if it was discussed.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20160314/0776cea1/attachment.html>

# Benjamin Gruenbaum (9 years ago)

I would be super surprised if I could use var everywhere except async iteration.

So I'd say consistency triumphs. Same reason all the ES2015 features exist in non-strict mode.

Also, you might want to look at the async/await pep for why Python has added async iteration in 3.5

I would be super surprised if I could use `var` everywhere _except_ async iteration. 

So I'd say consistency triumphs. Same reason all the ES2015 features exist in non-strict mode.

Also, you might want to look at the async/await pep for why Python has added async iteration in 3.5

> On 14 Mar 2016, at 20:29, John Lenz <concavelenz at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 11:19 AM, Kevin Smith <zenparsing at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Is there a summary of the motivation for "for-await" and "async iteration" in general? 
>> 
>> There's a short section at: 
>> https://github.com/tc39/proposal-async-iteration#overview-and-motivation
> 
> Thanks
>  
>>  
>>> Has there any discussion in not supporting "var" in "for-await" initializers?
>> 
>> Symmetry with for-of is definitely an important consideration.  Is there a particular reason why you think "var" should be disallowed?
>> 
> 
> There is not a backward compatibility concern and "var" is a smell for all the reasons that "let" was introduced (per-interation bindings don't happen, it isn't scoped to the block).  (I'm unclear why "for-of" allows "var" for the same reason).     I'm not convinced 100% either way, I was just wondering if it was discussed.
>  
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20160314/d9dee020/attachment.html>

# Isiah Meadows (9 years ago)

By the way, I think observables are getting more headway than async generators.

zenparsing/es

By the way, I think observables are getting more headway than async
generators.

https://github.com/zenparsing/es-observable

On Mon, Mar 14, 2016, 16:01 Benjamin Gruenbaum <inglor at gmail.com> wrote:

> I would be super surprised if I could use `var` everywhere _except_ async
> iteration.
>
> So I'd say consistency triumphs. Same reason all the ES2015 features exist
> in non-strict mode.
>
> Also, you might want to look at the async/await pep for why Python has
> added async iteration in 3.5
>
> On 14 Mar 2016, at 20:29, John Lenz <concavelenz at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 11:19 AM, Kevin Smith <zenparsing at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Is there a summary of the motivation for "for-await" and "async
>>> iteration" in general?
>>>
>>
>> There's a short section at:
>> https://github.com/tc39/proposal-async-iteration#overview-and-motivation
>>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>>
>>
>>> Has there any discussion in not supporting "var" in "for-await"
>>> initializers?
>>>
>>
>> Symmetry with for-of is definitely an important consideration.  Is there
>> a particular reason why you think "var" should be disallowed?
>>
>>
> There is not a backward compatibility concern and "var" is a smell for all
> the reasons that "let" was introduced (per-interation bindings don't
> happen, it isn't scoped to the block).  (I'm unclear why "for-of" allows
> "var" for the same reason).     I'm not convinced 100% either way, I was
> just wondering if it was discussed.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20160315/6a7209c6/attachment.html>

# Benjamin Gruenbaum (9 years ago)

Observables and async iterators are not at-odds. The two proposals complement each other and address two sides of the same coin (pull and push).

I'm also not sure what "headway" means here but a few months ago the observable counterpart to using the async for loop - the for.. on loop proposed by Jafar has been (possibly temporarily) scrapped in favor of async iteration with async iterators.

Observables and async iterators are not at-odds. The two proposals
complement each other and address two sides of the same coin (pull and
push).

I'm also not sure what "headway" means here but a few months ago the
observable counterpart to using the `async for` loop - the for.. on loop
proposed by Jafar has been (possibly temporarily) scrapped in favor of
async iteration with async iterators.

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 2:26 PM, Isiah Meadows <isiahmeadows at gmail.com>
wrote:

> By the way, I think observables are getting more headway than async
> generators.
>
> https://github.com/zenparsing/es-observable
>
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2016, 16:01 Benjamin Gruenbaum <inglor at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I would be super surprised if I could use `var` everywhere _except_ async
>> iteration.
>>
>> So I'd say consistency triumphs. Same reason all the ES2015 features
>> exist in non-strict mode.
>>
>> Also, you might want to look at the async/await pep for why Python has
>> added async iteration in 3.5
>>
>> On 14 Mar 2016, at 20:29, John Lenz <concavelenz at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 11:19 AM, Kevin Smith <zenparsing at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Is there a summary of the motivation for "for-await" and "async
>>>> iteration" in general?
>>>>
>>>
>>> There's a short section at:
>>> https://github.com/tc39/proposal-async-iteration#overview-and-motivation
>>>
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Has there any discussion in not supporting "var" in "for-await"
>>>> initializers?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Symmetry with for-of is definitely an important consideration.  Is there
>>> a particular reason why you think "var" should be disallowed?
>>>
>>>
>> There is not a backward compatibility concern and "var" is a smell for
>> all the reasons that "let" was introduced (per-interation bindings don't
>> happen, it isn't scoped to the block).  (I'm unclear why "for-of" allows
>> "var" for the same reason).     I'm not convinced 100% either way, I was
>> just wondering if it was discussed.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> es-discuss mailing list
>> es-discuss at mozilla.org
>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20160315/78918829/attachment.html>

# Isiah Meadows (9 years ago)

I'm referring to async generators primarily, though. And observables do have the forEach method to listen and iterate with.

I'm referring to async generators primarily, though. And observables do
have the forEach method to listen and iterate with.

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016, 08:46 Benjamin Gruenbaum <inglor at gmail.com> wrote:

> Observables and async iterators are not at-odds. The two proposals
> complement each other and address two sides of the same coin (pull and
> push).
>
> I'm also not sure what "headway" means here but a few months ago the
> observable counterpart to using the `async for` loop - the for.. on loop
> proposed by Jafar has been (possibly temporarily) scrapped in favor of
> async iteration with async iterators.
>
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 2:26 PM, Isiah Meadows <isiahmeadows at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> By the way, I think observables are getting more headway than async
>> generators.
>>
>> https://github.com/zenparsing/es-observable
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 14, 2016, 16:01 Benjamin Gruenbaum <inglor at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I would be super surprised if I could use `var` everywhere _except_
>>> async iteration.
>>>
>>> So I'd say consistency triumphs. Same reason all the ES2015 features
>>> exist in non-strict mode.
>>>
>>> Also, you might want to look at the async/await pep for why Python has
>>> added async iteration in 3.5
>>>
>>> On 14 Mar 2016, at 20:29, John Lenz <concavelenz at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 11:19 AM, Kevin Smith <zenparsing at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Is there a summary of the motivation for "for-await" and "async
>>>>> iteration" in general?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There's a short section at:
>>>> https://github.com/tc39/proposal-async-iteration#overview-and-motivation
>>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Has there any discussion in not supporting "var" in "for-await"
>>>>> initializers?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Symmetry with for-of is definitely an important consideration.  Is
>>>> there a particular reason why you think "var" should be disallowed?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> There is not a backward compatibility concern and "var" is a smell for
>>> all the reasons that "let" was introduced (per-interation bindings don't
>>> happen, it isn't scoped to the block).  (I'm unclear why "for-of" allows
>>> "var" for the same reason).     I'm not convinced 100% either way, I was
>>> just wondering if it was discussed.
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> es-discuss mailing list
>>> es-discuss at mozilla.org
>>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20160315/b923247e/attachment-0001.html>

# Domenic Denicola (9 years ago)

From: es-discuss [mailto:es-discuss-bounces at mozilla.org] On Behalf Of Isiah Meadows

By the way, I think observables are getting more headway than async generators.

This is very inaccurate. They have gotten more conference talks, but not more committee headway.

From: es-discuss [mailto:es-discuss-bounces at mozilla.org] On Behalf Of Isiah Meadows

> By the way, I think observables are getting more headway than async generators. 

This is very inaccurate. They have gotten more conference talks, but not more committee headway.

# Isiah Meadows (9 years ago)

Ok. I'll take that back then. (I wasn't 100% sure, anyways.)

Ok. I'll take that back then. (I wasn't 100% sure, anyways.)

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016, 09:29 Domenic Denicola <d at domenic.me> wrote:

> From: es-discuss [mailto:es-discuss-bounces at mozilla.org] On Behalf Of
> Isiah Meadows
>
> > By the way, I think observables are getting more headway than async
> generators.
>
> This is very inaccurate. They have gotten more conference talks, but not
> more committee headway.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20160317/58b9082a/attachment-0001.html>