Promises

Rick Waldron waldron.rick at gmail.com
Wed Nov 14 10:13:35 PST 2012


On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 12:48 PM, Mark S. Miller <erights at google.com> wrote:

>
>
>
> 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?
>

I was referring to the varied use of terminology illustrated in Kevin's
spreadsheet:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/10OeEwqEuEPyDVRU9VXemxi3kc7ba_pugxHLD2BSrG_k/edit


>
>
>
>>  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.
>

Originally I had worded the phrase something like "Make a Promise...";
regardless, this perspective clearly (and correctly) illustrates the
intention.

Rick



>
> --
>     Cheers,
>     --MarkM
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20121114/f509324f/attachment.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list