Proposal: Control.Concurrent.Async

[Ross Paterson]

On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 11:58:41AM +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
> There's one more change I'm thinking about: perhaps instead of
> 
>    wait      :: Async a -> IO (Either SomeException a)
>    waitThrow :: Async a -> IO a
> 
> we should reverse the naming scheme, rename waitThrow to wait and wait 
> to something else (waitCatch?).  Rationale: waitThrow seems to be the 
> version we need most often, and it's simpler to use.
> 
>    wait      :: Async a -> IO a
>    waitCatch :: Async a -> IO (Either SomeException a)
> 
> Thoughts? Better names for waitCatch?

Perhaps the recently freed tryWait would be analogous with
Control.Exception.try.