Add while! (while-bang) keyword to computation expressions

[mvkara]

Add while! (while-bang) keyword to computation expressions

I propose we extend the computation expression syntax with a new keyword, while!, that combines a let! and a typical while loop.

Using the current GRPC client as an example instead of writing something like...

task {
   let! firstRead = sender.ResponseStream.MoveNext(ct)
   let mutable read = firstRead
   while read do
     q.Push(sender.ResponseStream.Current)
     let! nextRead = sender.ResponseStream.MoveNext(ct)
     read <- nextRead
}

We should be able to do

task {
   while! sender.ResponseStream.MoveNext(ct) do
    q.Push(sender.ResponseStream.Current)
}

NOTE: That the typical approach for using recursion doesn't work for TaskBuilder's from my understanding since they aren't tail recursive in many libraries that provide them.

A similar problem exists when reading rows of an ADO.NET reader. If the while! syntax was allowed we would be able to do something like:

asyncSeq {
    // https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/api/system.data.common.dbdatareader.readasync?view=netcore-3.1
    while! reader.MoveNextAsync() do
        yield {| Column1 = reader.GetInt32(0); Column2 = reader.GetInt32(1) |}
}

Instead of:

asyncSeq {
   let rec yieldAsync() = asyncSeq {
      // https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/api/system.data.common.dbdatareader.readasync?view=netcore-3.1
      let! hasNext = reader.MoveNextAsync() |> Async.AwaitTask
      if hasNext
      then
          yield {| Column1 = reader.GetInt32(0); Column2 = reader.GetInt32(1) |}
          yield! yieldAsync()
   }
   yield! yieldAsync()
}

Pros and Cons

Pros: More concise code aiding readability, allows a more intuitive use of libraries exposing this pattern especially when given a Task API where using the recursive approach may not be supported, may offer a performance improvement for certain cases.

Cons: More work required to support this in the language and associated computational expressions (e.g. Task builders such as Ply).

Extra information

Estimated cost (XS, S, M, L, XL, XXL): S

Related suggestions:

#863

Affidavit (please submit!)

Please tick this by placing a cross in the box:

• This is not a question (e.g. like one you might ask on stackoverflow) and I have searched stackoverflow for discussions of this issue
• I have searched both open and closed suggestions on this site and believe this is not a duplicate
• This is not something which has obviously "already been decided" in previous versions of F#. If you're questioning a fundamental design decision that has obviously already been taken (e.g. "Make F# untyped") then please don't submit it.

Please tick all that apply:

• This is not a breaking change to the F# language design
• I or my company would be willing to help implement and/or test this

For Readers

If you would like to see this issue implemented, please click the 👍 emoji on this issue. These counts are used to generally order the suggestions by engagement.

[dsyme]

I agree with this, I'll mark it approved-in-princple