Futures (was: Request for JSON-LD API review)

Andreas Rossberg rossberg at google.com
Wed Apr 24 10:41:43 PDT 2013

On 24 April 2013 19:20, Mark S. Miller <erights at google.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 10:14 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Q and similar libraries don't actually assume that a Future<Future<x>>
>> is a Future<x>.
> Yes it does. Except of course that we call these "promises". Please see the
> extensive discussions on the Promises/A+ site about why this flattening
> behavior is important.

That strikes me as a very odd design decision, since it would seem to
violate all sorts of structural and equational invariants. Mark, could
you summarize the rationale for this, or provide a more specific link
to the appropriate bit of the discussion you are referring to?


More information about the es-discuss mailing list