Allsync function

[Gurigraphics]

Assumption:

async/await/promisses approachs seems that spread the treatment of complexity around the code.

Async function

const a = function(){  
  return new Promise(( resolve, reject ) async function(){ 
    let a = await getA()
    let b = await getB()  
    let c = await getC()
    let d = await getD()
    resolve( { a, b, c, d } )  
  }
}
let aa = await a()

That seems be more in agreement with single responsibility (or treatment ) principle:

Allsync function

const b = allsync function(){  
  let a = getDataA()  // = await getDataA()
  let b = getDataB() 
  let c = getDataC() 
  let d = getDataD() 
  return { a, b, c, d }  
} 
let bb = b() // = wait b()

It seems to make more defined what the function does and what it returns.
We don't await another result or behavior.
And we don't even have to indicate this everywhere.

[ljharb]

Please see https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#creating-a-new-proposal for the best way to suggest new features for the language.

[Gurigraphics]

Can you put as a discussion? I understand that before suggesting something is better discuss if this really makes sense.  And I consider here a appropriate place for this. Because it also be a critique of existing and in progress features.

[ljharb]

This repo is not an appropriate place for discussion of new language features; that's what es-discuss and the discourse are for.

Critiques of in-progress features happen on each proposal's own repo. This repo is for handling issues with the specification itself.

[Gurigraphics]

(...) This repo is for handling issues with the specification itself.

Ok. I suggest then removing or rename this option in New issue:
Feature request

[ljharb]

When you click that option, there's three paragraphs of text - the second one is:

Feature requests for future versions of ECMAScript should not be made in this
repository. Instead, they are developed in separate GitHub repositories, which
are then merged into the main repository once they have received "Stage 4".

[Gurigraphics]

I suggest:

Feature Requests and discussions about future versions of ECMAScript should not be made in this repository.

Continue with what you wrote...

Critiques of in-progress features happen on each proposal's own repo. This repo is (...)

[ljharb]

Here's the current text in its entirety, which already contains your suggestion:

TC39 is open to accepting new feature requests for ECMAScript, referred to as
"proposals". Proposals go through a four-stage process which is documented in
the TC39 process document.

Feature requests for future versions of ECMAScript should not be made in this
repository. Instead, they are developed in separate GitHub repositories, which
are then merged into the main repository once they have received "Stage 4".

Please see CONTRIBUTING.md for more details.

I'd be happy to hear suggestions for how that could be made clearer.

[Gurigraphics]

I'd be happy to hear suggestions for how that could be made clearer.

My opinion is that, with those two sentences in the first paragraph, it makes this clearer and can help to prevent this problem from recurring.

But if you prefer to assume that the atual text is excelente, and that the error is always from the user who has not read or not interpret properly, then ok ... Anyway, a suggestion is not an order.

[ljharb]

A PR to the issue template would be welcome.

[Gurigraphics]

Thanks: #1687