On Thu, Oct 23, 2025, at 13:08, Edmond Dantes wrote: > Hello. > > It seems to me that the following solution balances the different > viewpoints better: > > 1. Keep the base `Awaitable` interface, which defines an object that > can be awaited. > 2. Introduce a `FutureLike` interface that extends `Awaitable`. > 3. Modify the `await()` function so that it only accepts `FutureLike` objects. > 4. Functions such as `awaitAll` or `awaitAny` may need to be renamed, > but that’s outside the scope of this RFC. > 5. There will be no need to create a `Future` for functions designed > to work with an `Awaitable` object — this keeps the `select case` > syntax clean. > > **Naming issue** > > I see a certain inconsistency between `await` and `Awaitable`. > It might be worth coming up with a better name for `Awaitable`. > I remember that “Observable” was once suggested. >
Why not keep the name Awaitable instead of creating a FutureLike, but just harden the interface? We can always loosen the interface in the future, or create a new interface for "streaming" awaitables (aka, multi-shot Awaitable). Then await() could change its signature from Async\await(Awaitable $awaitable): mixed to Async\await(Awaitable|StreamingAwaitable $awaitable) at some point in the future -- and it would be BC. — Rob
