Extension methods for await/unlift/reflect
Closed this issue · 6 comments
It would be great to have chainable methods for awaiting a value inside an async block like this:
async {
Future(1).await + Future(2).await
}
I find it a nice because it requires less braces than await(Future(1)). Furthermore, it would support the syntax from https://github.com/typelevel/cats-effect-cps here. So, it very easy to switch.
As far as I understand, this could be achieved by making await/unlift/reflect extension methods on F[T], defining it like this:
extension[F[_],T,G[_]](f: F[T]) {
def await(using ctx: CpsMonadContext[G], conversion: CpsMonadConversion[F,G]): T = ???
}Afaik, it should then be available as method await(f) and as an extension f.await. What do you think?
When talking about short syntax: I actually really like the short syntax !. But now I stumbled on a case of !IO(true) and felt a bit confused about it. What do you think about using ~ instead (or additionally?). This is bit-wise negation, which I actually never used before - so maybe it would be less likely to have a clash of meanings.
Yes, it (postfix await) makes sense.
Two questions
- can this break 'cps-async-effect' ? (they do not reexport imports, but sometimes compiler leak imports, don't know why exactly. Will. recheck. )
- SIP54 ( https://docs.scala-lang.org/sips/multi-source-extension-overloads.html ) will be enabled by default in the next minor version of a compiler. If we want to coexists with other postfix awaits, better wait for this version.
Oops -- looks like in 3.5.0 we can't define an extension with the same name as a method,
because the compiler begins to understand prefix invocation as an overloaded application.
I will submit it to the compiler team, but I am unsure if it will be classified as unexpected behavior.
Hmm, maybe we can use only extensions instead ...yes, this works
Awesome, I am very happy that it works :)
0.9.22. with await extension method is published on maven central