await* [asyncOp(), asyncOp()] -> await Promise.all([asyncOp(), asyncOp()]) ?

[timjacobi]

I'm just wondering why it is not included in the proposal. It is already implemented in Babel.

[bterlson]

It doesn't seem useful to me. If it did something similar to yield* where it saves you from having to write complex loops to get an array of promises I would be OK with it but we just don't need sugar for typing Promise.all IMO.

[zloirock]

My point - await* -> Promise.all very useful and should be returned to the current proposal. Yes, it's only sugar for Promise.all, but this proposal completely sugar for generators and promises.

[domenic]

And it definitely wouldn't use * because it has no correlation with what * means for generators.

Babel is just not implementing the spec here.

[bterlson]

FWIW, there is no reason await * can't stand on its own. There is committee consensus behind this proposal without await * so at this point if people want await * they can champion it as part of a separate proposal.

[arv]

Another point to not do await* now is that we might want to save it for something better.

[timjacobi]

As @domenic said:

Babel is just not implementing the spec here.

That's all I wanted to know. Thanks! :)

[trusktr]

Is there anything besides Promise.all() and Promise.race() that people might want to use async* for? If not, then this idea:

await [one, two, three] // async Promise.all([one, two, three])
await* [one, two, three] // async Promise.race([one, two, three])

[ljharb]

@trusktr it'd be await not async, but await [one, two, three] is a promise for an array of three things.

There's virtually no value in providing a syntax shortcut for Promise.all and Promise.race - just type them out.