Enhancing main entry point convention

[dzharkov]

Proposal: https://github.com/Kotlin/KEEP/blob/enhancing-main-convention/proposals/enhancing-main-convention.md

PR for comments: #157

[Dico200]

from runSuspend definition for JVM:

override fun resumeWith(result: Result<Unit>) = synchronized(this) {

If there isn't a typealias for Result to SuccessOrFailure somewhere, I'm convinced the type should be SuccessOrFailure<Unit>.

[dzharkov]

@Dico200 In 1.3 (since RC) it will be renamed to Result

[hannomalie]

@dzharkov Wow, that's a step! Is there any info about this step somewhere!? I'm just interested in the topic after I followed the discussion about the naming of SuccessOrFailure/Result.

[elizarov]

@hannespernpeintner

Wow, that's a step! Is there any info about this step somewhere!? I'm just interested in the topic after I followed the discussion about the naming of SuccessOrFailure/Result.

Please watch updates in the corresponding KEEP. It will be updated: #127

[gildor]

If there are problems with suspend implementation on Kotlin Native, maybe we could support at least part of new convention: omit args from main function

[Dico200]

@dzharkov
I read all the discussion in KEEP #127 just days ago, checked back there now and I don't see any updates, nor in the file. I do not see anything conclusively saying that the decision was revisited.

So as far as I understand it, it's a change you intend to make - which has yet to be mentioned in the KEEP.
Which is fair enough, I just wanted to point out I don't recall such a decision being made.

[dzharkov]

@gildor

If there are problems with suspend implementation on Kotlin Native, maybe we could support at least part of new convention: omit args from main function

I think at some point they will be supported

[dzharkov]

@dzharkov
I read all the discussion in KEEP #127 just days ago, checked back there now and I don't see any updates, nor in the file. I do not see anything conclusively saying that the decision was revisited.

So as far as I understand it, it's a change you intend to make - which has yet to be mentioned in the KEEP.
Which is fair enough, I just wanted to point out I don't recall such a decision being made.

Finally, it's here
#127 (comment)

[dzharkov]

Implemented in 1.3