On 07/03/2025 22:01, Larry Garfield wrote:
Is that what you're suggesting? If so, I'd have to think it through a bit more to see what guarantees that does[n't] provide. It might work. (I deliberately used spawn instead of "await" to avoid the mental association with JS async/await.) My biggest issue is that this is starting to feel like colored functions, even if partially transparent.
Yes, that's pretty much what was in my head. I freely admit I haven't thought through the implications either.
My biggest issue is that this is starting to feel like colored functions, even if partially transparent.
I think it's significantly *less* like coloured functions than passing around a nursery object. You could almost take this:
async function foo($bar int, $baz string) {
spawn something_else();
}
spawn foo(42, 'hello');
As sugar for this:
function foo($bar int, $baz string, AsyncNursery $__nursery) {
$__nursery->spawn( something_else(...) );
}
$__nursery->spawn( fn($n) => foo(42, 'hello', $n) );
However you spell it, you've had to change the function's *signature* in order to use async facilities in its *body*.
If the body can say "get current nursery", it can be called even if its *immediate* caller has no knowledge of async code, as long as we have some reasonable definition of "current".
--
Rowan Tommins
[IMSoP]