bbrk24

Isn't this just `util.promisify`? Even if you aren't in Node, this isn't hard to implement yourself: ```js const promisify = fn => (...args) => new Promise((resolve, reject) => fn(...args, (result,...

I'm still not sure I understand the point. Your initial motivating example still feels like it could just use `promisify`: ```civet get := util.promisify $@get async do data := await...

> `console.log await.all fetch item` `console.log await.all list.map fetch .`?

Nominally, I’m still maintaining it. I lost a lot of motivation when I realized that one of the features I wanted for 1.3 would require a significant internal rewrite of...

I believe it is documented that a cluster field has to end in two consecutive newlines, but I agree that extra whitespace shouldn't count. I can look into that later...

I wouldn't be against it, but aren't polyfills generally outside the scope of Civet?

`Array::concat` can handle multiple arguments, and is way faster than multiple spreads: [JSBenchmark](https://jsbenchmark.com/#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) .concat is about 5x faster for me (Firefox on Windows). So, the compilation would be `[a].concat(Array.fromAsync(b), c,...

> Is this really the first time it's come up with a single assignment? Usually it's either multiple assignment (`x := try f() catch g()`) or assigned in expression position...

Actually, I just discovered another situation in which this error can trigger: ```civet -> return = 5 foo() ``` The return ref is never used again so it "should" be...

Potential translation that works for both bigint and number: ```js ((s, e) => { let step = e > s ? 1 : -1; const makeStep = typeof s ==...