Rename callSyncifying to callPromising, add callWithOptions

[hoodmane]

Since we renamed syncify the method name callSyncifying doesn't make much sense anymore. It is implemented in terms of a so-called promising wasm call, so this lines up with that. OTOH:

• Nobody is likely to know what that refers to
• most people won't need this anyways
• it does return a promise so the name is somewhat descriptive
• the main point of it is to call a sync function and enable stack switching
• so maybe something like suspendableCall would be more appropriate?

We now have three boolean parameters for a Js-to-Python call:

1. kwargs
2. promising
3. relaxed

So we'd need 8 functions to cover all combinations of these. Currently we only have 6 of these. Rather than adding the two remaining combinations which will have annoying names, I added callOptions which takes an options argument as the first argument. Despite the fact that options usually go as the last argument, I think it makes sense to use the first argument for this so that all remaining args are passed on to Python. There's also a suggestion of adding a timeout parameter #4537 which this would reasonably accomodate.

Is callOptions a good name? @rth @ryanking13 anyone have thoughts on names (or anything else)?

Checklist

• Add a CHANGELOG entry
• Add / update tests
• Add new / update outdated documentation

[ryanking13]

Thanks @hoodmane!

Naming is hard and it's especially hard to come up with an intuitive name for something as technically complex as this.

My feeling for callPromising and callOptions is:

• callPromising: The relationship to run_sync doesn't seem to be obvious, at least from the name. If what we expect is to use callPromising with run_sync, wouldn't it be nice to have a little more similarity in the name?
• callOptions: callOptions sounds like an object that contains the parameters for the function call, rather than a method name. Maybe callWithOptions?

[hoodmane]

The relationship to run_sync doesn't seem to be obvious, at least from the name. If what we expect is to use callPromising with run_sync, wouldn't it be nice to have a little more similarity in the name?

Yes, I suppose we should brainstorm what that would be... As you've probably noticed, I usually name things by starting with something bad and begging @rth or you to come up with something better.

Maybe callWithOptions?

That sounds good to me.