5 ms·

I tried to lean pretty hard into "this syntax is just like threads" in that internals.r-l.org post, when I wrote it, proposing almost exactly what you describe

• jules 7y ago
  I still don't understand why #1 is a problem. > But as I described, this means callers have to add or remove an extra `.run()`/`.await()`/etc. if the API ever switches between the two. Switches between what though? When you want to do something asynchronously, you indeed build a future and later .await() it. Suppose you then want to build that future in a different way, for example by transforming future { foo(x) } to making foo(x) itself return the future (i.e. moving the future{} block inside foo), possibly because you want to dereference x before building it. Well, the .await() was already there, and doesn't need to be changed. The future{} ... await() pair gets introduced when you want to making things asynchronous, which is exactly as it should be? Furthermore, isn't that the same with the main async/await proposal? It is indeed true that when you make things async you only have to mark a function as async, and then all the calls to it automatically become async. However, at the end of the day you still need to await those futures or else they won't do anything. So when you switch from sync to async you still need to add those awaits. The difference seems to me the other way around: with the main proposal you need more awaits (namely, at all points where you want to stay synchronous). With your proposal you need more async/future blocks (namely, at all points where you want to switch to asynchronous). I think that using the same keyword for async fn and async{} block is a source of confusion, because it makes it seem like async fn is basically like wrapping the body in an async{} block. It's what makes people think that an async fn is like an automatically awaited future, which is a confusing way to think about it and makes it hard to see why this proposal is a good idea (even if it's actually implemented like that under the hood). I think it becomes a lot clearer if you use a different word for these two concepts (like async fn and future{} block), and remove the ::new() and only use future{} syntax. This proposal does raise another question: why not just green threads, and remove the concept of async functions entirely?
  • Rusky 7y ago
    Switches between keeping the args for the function's full duration, or returning a closure (async or not) that doesn't hold onto them. Here's the problem in terms of normal OS threads: fn f<'a>(r: &'a i32) -> i32 { ... *r ... } // oh no, I can't do this: let i = 42; thread::spawn(|| f(&i)); Here's the workaround: fn f<'a>(r: &'a i32) -> impl FnOnce() -> i32 { let i = *r; || ... i ... } // now I can do this: let i = 42; thread::spawn(f(&i)); In this case, and the analogous lightweight threads case you're describing, and the "implicit await" post I originally linked, the workaround forces the caller to change its syntax. From `|| f(&i)` to `f(&i)`, or from `async { f(&i) }` to `f(&i)`, or from `future { f(&i) }` to `f(&i)`. But in async/await as currently proposed and implemented, the transformation goes from this... async fn f<'a>(r: &'a i32) -> i32 { ... *r ... } // oh no, I can't do this: let i = 42; task::spawn(f(&i)); ...to this: fn f<'a>(r: &'a i32) -> impl Future<Output = i32> { let i = *r; async { ... i ... } } // now I can do this: let i = 42; thread::spawn(f(&i)); You can imagine someone originally writing the first version, when all their callers just immediately `await` so it's okay if the reference sticks around. But then another caller wants to write something like the above, so they make the transformation above. Under today's futures, all the other call sites keep working (`f(&i).await`) and the new use case starts working. Under our proposals, that transformation would break everyone just using the `f(&i)` syntax, so it probably wouldn't happen, and instead the new caller would have to write this: thread::spawn(async move { // move `i` in here, or worse, stuff it in an Arc, even though it's only needed for setup! let my_i = i; f(&my_i) });
    • jules 7y ago
      I see. Would that be such a disaster under your proposal? Original code is: async fn f<'a>(r: &'a i32) -> i32 { ... *r ... } Having some callers future{ f(&i) }.await(). Now the new caller comes in, so we add a function f_future: fn f_future<'a>(r: &'a i32) -> impl Future<Output = i32> let i = *r; async { ... i ... } } The new caller uses f_future and the old callers keep using f. To prevent duplication we can factor out ... i ... into a function g(i) and do g(*r) in the async fn f. The other callers can migrate from future{ f(&i) }.await() to f_future(&i).await() over time. It's not as ideal as not having to change the signature at all, but signature changes can be dealt with. Or is this a big problem with OS threads?