async_future.clj

(async
 (let [a (await (async-task-a))
       b (await (async-task-b))
       c (await (async-task-c (* a b)))]
   (+ a b c)))

;; whish is equivalent to:

(async
 (let [a (await (async-task-a))
       b (await (async-task-b))]
   (+ a
      b
      (await (async-task-c (* a b))))))


;; async blocks return futures

This is quite nice!

@jed,

I've updated the example to perhaps make it slightly clearer. The two are equivalent and are an alternative way of writing flatmap/map;

(flatmap (async-task-a)
         (fn [a]
           (flatmap (async-task-b)
                    (fn [b]
                      (map (async-task-c (* a b)) 
                           (fn [c]
                             (+ a b c)))))))

Or this do-notation:

(do [a (async-task-a)
     b (async-task-b)
     c (async-task-c (* a b))]
    (return (+ a b c)))

It just allows you to write sync-looking async code without necessarily having to bind the result of intermediate values if it's not necessary. (in haskell one could also use liftA to the same effect).