More flexibility in the ECMAScript part? (was: Re: Futures

Tab Atkins Jr. jackalmage at
Wed Apr 17 20:07:15 PDT 2013

On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 3:57 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
<allen at> wrote:
> A a rule of thumb, if a library does something that can not be expressed in
> the its base language there is a good chance it is extending "the virtual
> machine" of the language and it should at least be reviewed from that
> perspective and iframe semantics.  These are both examples of browser design
> choices that have deep semantics impact upon the language.

Note that Futures are entirely expressible in today's JS semantics.

(Not to say that it shouldn't be reviewed by the language gurus here,
just saying.)


More information about the es-discuss mailing list