I'm undecided on that front. I kinda like it simple, because people will for sure misuse this and treat it like a let thing which them breaks if something isn't actually returning a promise.

promesa sort of does this and I personally do not like it

(js-await [db (db "flow")]
  (js-await [v (get db id)]
    (js-await [ret (put db v)]
      (do-stuff ret))
    (catch err
           ...)))

Yeah that ran through my head as well. I considered more complicated things and landed on "only do promises, manually do lets," for myself as well.

also allows handling errors at separate stages

and it still chains just fine

Not certain, but I'm pretty sure a recursive js-await would allow the same level of err handling.

output should be the same as doing the above^ only with fewer manual calls to js-await

not quite, since I moved the error handling one lvl down. so it is not the same technically. but yeah otherwise it is

oh I see what you're saying, yeah but there would be nothing stopping from using that^ way as well if that's what you want

true. I oriented this more on the JS lvl, so that it stays close to JS semantics

anyways, I'm not at all trying to convince you. I appreciate your general aesthetic. Hence why I asked first 😉

I just did the work on my end, so I thought I'd ask

yeah undecided for now. I do eventually want this to emit actual await, just didn't get to hacking this into the compiler yet