Re: [streams] Change the model for ReadableStream to have async read() (#288)

> Where would you put released ...

This was comment about the functionality we have that we can wait for release of the reader by then()-ing `rs.ready()`. I suggested that if we really want to do that, I'd realize it as `rs.released()` than `rs.ready()`.

Sorry for not elaborating motivation/context about this proposal much. But this was from analysis about what states we should have for WritableStream with Writer I did yesterday.

Here is a list of states in the form of `X -> A, B, C, ...` where X is state name or a name of a group of states and A, B, C, ... are the states X may transit to. Sorry but this is written for WritableOperationStream, not WritableStream.

- "locked" -> available
- available -> "locked"
  - (write()/close() are allowed) -> "closed", "aborted", "cancelled", "errored"
    - "writable" (backpressure applied) -> "waiting"
    - "waiting" (backpressure not applied) -> "writable"
  - "closed" -> "aborted", "cancelled", "errored"
  - "aborted"
  - "cancelled"
  - "errored"

For convenience, `ready` on `WritableStream` is catching all transitions from `"waiting"`. But, transitions that may happen unsolicitedly to the user of the stream are actually a few of them. For WritableOperationStream's case:

- locked -> something
- something -> errored
- something -> writable

I thought it may lead to simplification in general if we have sufficient enough promises for capturing only these transition. Sorry, I cannot give concrete rationale for now. But this is background...

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/whatwg/streams/pull/288#issuecomment-76332480