Add options.allowAwaitOutsideFunction.

[jdalton]

This PR addresses #7634.

It's missing tests as the moment. (I'll rebase them in soon)

Update:

✅ Added tests.

[babel-bot]

Build successful! You can test your changes in the REPL here: https://babeljs.io/repl/build/7405/

[babel-bot]

Build successful! You can test your changes in the REPL here: https://babeljs.io/repl/build/7396/

[nicolo-ribaudo]

WDYT of naming it allowTopLevelAwait, since it is how it's usually referred to?

Also, I think that this code should still throw:

function fn() {
  await x;
}

[jdalton]

Fixed lint errors, added tests, and ensured an error is thrown for the case raised by @nicolo-ribaudo.
I kept the name as allowAwaitOutsideFunction since it's technically more correct and aligns with existing and similar options (feel free to tweak to taste however).

[xtuc]

thanks for your.

Could we maybe rename the tests? core/uncategorised/555 is not super obvious.

[jdalton]

Could we maybe rename the tests?

I wasn't sure about that but noticed a large collection of tests incremented as numbers. Is there a particular place or naming scheme you had in mind?

[nicolo-ribaudo]

You could put it in fixtures/es2017/async-functions/allowAwaitOutsideFunction.

I kept the name as allowAwaitOutsideFunction since it's technically more correct and aligns with existing and similar options

I still prefer the allowTopLevelAwait name, but I'm ok with this since it is how allowReturnOutsideFunction is named.

[nicolo-ribaudo]

I just learned that this is actually a new proposal (https://github.com/MylesBorins/proposal-top-level-await). Can you define this feture it using a new Babylon plugin (topLevelAwait) instead of an option?

Something like this:

if (isAwait && !this.state.inFunction) this.expectPlugin("topLevelAwait");

The tests would then go in packages/babylon/test/fixtures/experimental/top-level-await/basic/input.js. Also, the Babylon readme should then be updated.

[jdalton]

I rather not since the proposal, and its variations, are much more involved. I think later, if someone wants to add a plugin to support the proposal (and variations) more in-depth, then they could build on top of allowAwaitOutsideFunction

Update:

Moved tests to a more readable place.

[hzoo]

I think later, if someone wants to add a plugin to support the proposal (and variations) more in-depth, then they could build on top of allowAwaitOutsideFunction

that's true