<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div><br><br>Sent from my iPad</div><div><br>On Sep 1, 2017, at 12:44 AM, Marc Schlichte <<a href="mailto:marc.schlichte@googlemail.com">marc.schlichte@googlemail.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><meta http-equiv="Content-Security-Policy" content="script-src 'self'; img-src * cid: data:;"><div id="response_container_BBPPID" style="outline:none;font-size:initial;font-family:"Calibri","Slate Pro",sans-serif,"sans-serif"" dir="auto" contenteditable="false"> <div name="BB10" dir="auto" style="width: 100%; padding: initial; font-size: initial; text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> No, </div><div name="BB10" id="BB10_response_div_BBPPID" dir="auto" style="width: 100%; padding: initial; font-size: initial; text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><br></div><div name="BB10" id="BB10_response_div_BBPPID" dir="auto" style="width: 100%; padding: initial; font-size: initial; text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">as I see it, async / await without actors should behave the same way as if you pass continuations instead - especially if we auto convert CPS style functions into await/async style, the queueing behavior must not change IMHO. </div></div><div name="BB10" dir="auto" style="background-image: initial; line-height: initial; outline: none;" contenteditable="false"><!--end of _originalContent --></div></blockquote><br><div>Ok, then I guess we just disagree. I don't see any need for the new syntax to have the same semantics, since you can still use the CPS syntax if you want the old behavior.</div><div><br></div><div>If all async/await does is give us a slightly prettier way to write the same grungy code I'll be very disappointed.</div></body></html>