Yawar Amin

We should consider overall syntax consistency. Reason syntax makes any kind of value construction look like function application e.g. `let x = Some(0);`. And conversely so does destructuring e.g. `let...

Reason has already added let-operators. It's part of the language now. [Edit: I think I misunderstood you, do you mean if Reason adds `await` syntax after already adding let-operators? That's...

But the whole point of promises is to turn asynchronous computations into first-class values that can be passed around. Lazy values are values in exactly the same sense. Anyway I...

`await` is not constructing a promise, it's binding to an existing promise and letting a continuation run on it. It's not the same as `lazy(...)`. In fact JavaScript promises don't...

We've spent quite a bit of time talking about a hypothetical async/await syntax for Reason, something I'm fairly sure will not happen now that let-operators are officially part of the...

Given that `let+`/`let*` have been merged into OCaml 4.08 and [backported through Dune](https://discuss.ocaml.org/t/let-syntax-backported-to-ocaml-4-02/3447) to >=4.02, I think we can consider this issue resolved if and when Reason syntax also supports...

@benjamine I think we need to talk about them separately: - ReasonML is (among other things) a new syntax for OCaml that provides one-to-one mappings for almost every OCaml syntax...

Looks like this issue is no longer relevant?

Could there be a possibility of splitting out a BuckleScript-compatible odoc into a separate npm package, e.g. `bs-platform-odoc`? Then we could modify the project templates to create projects with that...

@ostera I took a little time to digest your points :-) perhaps we can simplify some things. Suppose we go with a `bs-platform-odoc` separate package. We can version it to...