Wherefore art thou Romio?

This blog post is about a project called Romio that I’ve been working on over the past two or three weeks. Romio is a port of a small part of the Tokio project to the newer futures APIs. I started the project to get some experience porting code from the old futures API to the new API. However, we realized that this code could also be useful to other people who want to experiment with networking code using the new async/await syntax, so with the help of others we polished it up during the RustFest Rome “impl days” and now its being released for people to experiment with. [Read More]

Making progress in await syntax

One thing we’ve left as an unresolved question so far in the matter of async/await syntax is the exact final syntax for the await operation. In the current implementation, awaits are written using a compiler plugin: async fn foo() { await!(bar()); } This is not because of any technical limitation: the reason we have done this is that we have not decided on the precise, final syntax for the await operation. [Read More]

Async Methods II: object safety

Last time, we introduced the idea of async methods, and talked about how they would be implemented: as a kind of anonymous associated type on the trait that declares the method, which corresponds to a different, anonymous future type for each implementation of that method. Starting this week we’re going to look at some of the implications of that. The first one we’re going to look at is object safety. [Read More]

Async Methods I: generic associated types

Async/await continues to move along swimmingly. We’ve accepted an RFC describing how the async/await syntax will work in Rust, and work is underway on implementing support for it in the compiler. We’re hopeful that users will be able to start experimenting with the syntax on nightly by early July. The RFC for async/await didn’t address one important thing: async methods. It is very important for people defining libraries to be able to define traits that contain async functions, like this: [Read More]

Async & Await in Rust: a full proposal

I’m really excited to announce the culmination of much of our work over the last four months: a pair of RFCs for supporting async & await notation in Rust. This will be very impactful for Rust in the network services space. The change is proposed as two RFCs: RFC #2394: which adds async & await notation to the language. RFC #2395: which moves a part of the futures library into std to support that syntax. [Read More]

Async/Await VI: 6 weeks of great progress

It’s hard to believe its been almost 6 weeks since the last post I made about async/await in Rust. So much has happened that these last several weeks have flown by. We’ve made exceptionally good progress on solving the problem laid out in the first post of this series, and I want to document it all for everyone. Future and the pinning API Last month I wrote an RFC called “Standard library API for immovable types”. [Read More]

Async/Await V: Getting back to the futures

Two posts ago I proposed a particular interface for shipping self-referential generators this year. Immediately after that, eddyb showed me a better interface, which I described in the next post. Now, to tie everything together, its time to talk about how we can integrate this into the futures ecosystem. Starting point: this Generator API To begin, I want to document the generator API I’ll be using in this post, which is roughly what followed from my previous post: [Read More]

Async/Await IV: An Even Better Proposal

I did not plan to write this blog post. I thought that the fourth post in my series would explain how we could go from the generator API in my previous post to a futures API in which you don’t have to heap allocate every async call. But eddyb surprised me, and now I have to revisit the API in the previous post, because we can implement everything we need from immovability with a safe interface afterall. [Read More]

Async/Await III: Moving Forward with Something Shippable

In the first post, we looked at the relationship between generators and a more general notion of self-references. In the second post, we narrowed down exactly what problem we need to solve to make generators work, and talked about some solutions that we’ve considered but don’t feel like we could ship in the near future. In the original post, I promised that I would have a near term solution by the end of this series. [Read More]

Async/Await II: Narrowing the Scope of the Problem

Last time we talked about the broader problem that generators with references across yield points represent: self-referential structs. This time, I want to narrow in on the specific problem that needs to be solved to make generators work, and also discuss some ideas for solutions that I think are false starts. (I still don’t have a proposal about what to do in this post, but it will come soon enough! [Read More]