Mark S. Miller erights at
Wed Nov 14 09:48:22 PST 2012

On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 9:28 AM, Rick Waldron <waldron.rick at>wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 11:25 AM, Domenic Denicola <
> domenic at> wrote:
>>  Why go purposefully against the existing terminology of the JavaScript
>> ecosystem? Just say “deferred” where you have “promise” and “promise” where
>> you have “future” and you avoid needless confusion and conflict.
> It's true that the terminology exists in JS, but it's been identified that
> these terms may have been misappropriated.

"misappropriated"? What do you mean?

> Kevin's proposal is easier to reason about:
> "Promise to deliver a value in the Future"

This would make "promise" a verb, which is clearly its dominant nat-lang
use. However, I don't see how that justifies using it as the name for the
Deferred abstraction. "in the Future" uses future to name the time when the
value will be delivered. I don't see how this suggests anything appropriate

For "Promise" as a noun, if I have a promise from you, I do not have the
ability to resolve the promise -- that ability is your's. So the ability of
resolve the promise is clearly distinct from having the promise.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the es-discuss mailing list