Re: [heycam/webidl] Async iterators (#580)

So in that proposed syntax if you want to define a method returning an async iterable you'd have to define a separate interface for that return type, and return that instead? Or would `async_iterable<Something>` also be a valid return type directly? I guess defining the extra interface would be easy enough, just in my mind I was seeing this more as the async equivalent of a method that would otherwise return a `sequence<Something>`.

But either way, yes, I definitely want some way of being able to return async interables in specs. So whatever shape that takes, sounds good to me.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/heycam/webidl/issues/580#issuecomment-414752227