Promises

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


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

>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 11:25 AM, Domenic Denicola <
> domenic at domenicdenicola.com> 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
either.

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.


-- 
    Cheers,
    --MarkM
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20121114/0ab51089/attachment.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list