Skip to content

Async combinators #262

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Closed
wants to merge 14 commits into from
Closed

Async combinators #262

wants to merge 14 commits into from

Conversation

montekki
Copy link
Member

Partially fixes #244 (Probably that issue needs to be broken down in two: 1) for what can be done now 2) what can be done in the future like async closures and taking by ref.

Also unimplements Unpin for all and any combinators becasue now we have a future cached that may not be unpin.

@yoshuawuyts
Copy link
Contributor

This is very exciting; thanks for putting in the work!

@montekki
Copy link
Member Author

montekki commented Oct 2, 2019

@yoshuawuyts can we r+ #263 so this one can be updated and move on from draft?

@montekki montekki marked this pull request as ready for review October 3, 2019 05:42
a.parse::<u32>().ok()
});

let mut parsed = unsafe { std::pin::Pin::new_unchecked(&mut parsed) };
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hm is there something we could do about the unsafe block here? Even using pin_utils might be better than what we currently have, but I'm curious why we need it?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

yep, that's must be some leftover

Copy link
Contributor

@yoshuawuyts yoshuawuyts left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Overall this is looking really good! -- left a few nits about the examples; but very excited for this!

@montekki
Copy link
Member Author

montekki commented Oct 5, 2019

@yoshuawuyts fixed, but the for_each example is now cringe. Idk how to dodge this kind of capturing trouble with the support from the language we have at hand r.n.

@yoshuawuyts yoshuawuyts mentioned this pull request Oct 5, 2019
@yoshuawuyts
Copy link
Contributor

Dang, it seems that CI went and broke between the last commit and the most recent one. Currently trying to fix parts of it through #280, but I'm thinking I should probably just manually run the tests on this PR to confirm things are good and then merge (:

@yoshuawuyts
Copy link
Contributor

@montekki could you try rebasing on master?

@yoshuawuyts yoshuawuyts requested a review from a user October 5, 2019 21:19
@yoshuawuyts yoshuawuyts added the enhancement New feature or request label Oct 8, 2019
@yoshuawuyts
Copy link
Contributor

yoshuawuyts commented Oct 8, 2019

@montekki could you try rebasing again? -- I really want to get this to pass CI so we can merge it.

@yoshuawuyts yoshuawuyts mentioned this pull request Oct 8, 2019
@montekki montekki requested a review from yoshuawuyts October 9, 2019 07:54
@taiki-e taiki-e mentioned this pull request Nov 11, 2019
@dignifiedquire
Copy link
Member

@yoshuawuyts @montekki what is the state of this?

@montekki
Copy link
Member Author

montekki commented Apr 9, 2020

@dignifiedquire this still needed? merged with master, going to do required cleanups a bit later

@taiki-e
Copy link
Contributor

taiki-e commented Apr 10, 2020

As far as I know, this was postponed to the next major version: #496 (comment) (perhaps because async closure is incomplete)

@montekki
Copy link
Member Author

Ok no rush then.

@montekki
Copy link
Member Author

Ok, at this point I think that I'd rather re-implement it from scratch when time comes than continue attempts to update this PR so closing.

@montekki montekki closed this Apr 10, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

async combinators for Stream
4 participants