<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><br><div><br>On 3 Sep 2017, at 18:03, Chris Lattner <<a href="mailto:clattner@nondot.org">clattner@nondot.org</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Sep 3, 2017, at 4:00 AM, David Hart <<a href="mailto:david@hartbit.com" class="">david@hartbit.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div class="Singleton" style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;"><div class=""><blockquote type="cite" class="" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;"><div class=""><div class="">Please don’t read too much into the beginAsync API. It is merely a strawman, and intended to be a low-level API that higher level abstractions (like a decent futures API) can be built on top of. I think it is important to have some sort of primitive low-level API that is independent of higher level abstractions like Futures.<br class=""><br class="">This is all a way of saying “yes, having something like you propose makes sense” but that it should be part of the Futures API, which is outside the scope of the async/await proposal.<br class=""></div></div></blockquote><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;" class=""><br class=""></div><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;" class="">But it would be nice for all high-level APIs that conform to a<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><b class="">Awaitable</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>protocol to be used with<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><b class="">await</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>without having to reach for a<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><b class="">get</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>property or something similar everytime.</div></div></div></div></blockquote><br class=""></div><div>The futures API that is outlined in the proposal is just an example, it isn’t a concrete pitch for a specific API. There are a bunch of improvements that can (and should) be made to it, it is just that a futures API should be the subject of a follow-on proposal to the basic async/await mechanics.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Of course, but perhaps an Awaitable protocol could be part of the proposal, no? In that case, even this proposal does end up being accepted and implemented for Swift 5, but a Promise proposal does not, a protocol would be available for third party futures and promises to blend well with await.</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div>-Chris</div><div><br class=""></div><div><br class=""></div></div></blockquote></body></html>