[heavenlyblue]

> One advantage of async/await is that its easier to cancel things. For example, this leads to the design pattern where you have multiple futures and you want to select the one that finishes first and cancel the rest.

> In regular threaded programming, cancellation is a bit more painful as you need to have some type of cancellation token used each time the thread waits for something. This a) is more verbose and b) can lead to bugs where you forget to implement the cancellation logic.

Yeah of course Rust just makes cancellation so easy by allowing the Futures to be dropped. What about the resources these Futures could have allocated within the context that are not just memory? You are saying it as if async/await somehow solved the whole problem of stack unwinding.

[dminik]

Since rust follows RAII, any and all resources allocated in the context should be deallocated when their destructor (the drop trait) is called. The unfortunate exception to this are resources which require an async call to deallocate properly. Though this can be worked around and there is work being done to fix this properly.

[heavenlyblue]

> Since rust follows RAII, any and all resources allocated in the context should be deallocated when their destructor (the drop trait) is called. The unfortunate exception to this are resources which require an async call to deallocate properly. Though this can be worked around and there is work being done to fix this properly.

Yeah as I said async does not, in fact, "provide easily cancellable execution patterns".

[Matthias247]

only if the resources are just used within this task. If an async function at some point in time generates another task (or even spawns a thread!) that can not be synchronously cancelled then it might outlive the destructor and thereby the async task. It's therefore nowhere near guaranteed that every Future can just be dropped to stop an action in a side-effect free fashion.

[quietbritishjim]

I think the comment was about async in general, not just Rust (although that's the topic of OP).

In Python, cancellation causes an exception to be injected at the await site, which allows it to clean up whatever resources it likes (even if that means making other async calls). If you use Trio or the new TaskGroup in asyncio (inspired by Trio) then an exception leaking out of one task causes the others to be cancelled, and then the task group waits for all tasks to complete (successfully, with exception, or cancelled). It's extremely nice and easy to write reliable programs.

In principle, I think many of these ideas could be applied to threaded IO. But I haven't seen it done in practice.

[gpderetta]

> In principle, I think many of these ideas could be applied to threaded IO.

That's how POSIX deferred [1] cancellation works. An uncatchable exception is thrown from blocking calls if a thread is requested to terminate. As POSIX is C centered, you can imagine that handling exceptions was never popular, but it should work fine in C++. For some reasons it wasn't added to std::thread though.

[1] there is also async cancellation, but friends do not let friends use PTHREAD_CANCEL_ASYNCHRONOUS.

[heavenlyblue]

> In Python, cancellation causes an exception to be injected at the await site, which allows it to clean up whatever resources it likes (even if that means making other async calls). If you use Trio or the new TaskGroup in asyncio (inspired by Trio) then an exception leaking out of one task causes the others to be cancelled, and then the task group waits for all tasks to complete (successfully, with exception, or cancelled). It's extremely nice and easy to write reliable programs.

But not in JavaScript.