Futures (was: Request for JSON-LD API review)
Tab Atkins Jr.
jackalmage at gmail.com
Wed Apr 24 11:18:20 PDT 2013
On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 10:51 AM, Domenic Denicola
<domenic at domenicdenicola.com> wrote:
> From: Andreas Rossberg [rossberg at google.com]
>> 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?
> I'm not Mark, and he might have something more specific in mind, but this summary was pretty helpful:
These aren't very good reasons, unfortunately. :/
The JQP... problem can be solved by a single "flatten" operation added
to the API. This is a totally reasonable operation, same as it would
be for Arrays.
The identify function for monads is the monadic lift function -
Future.accept() in the case of Futures. The only reason passing the
identity function in *at all* works is because we have special magic
that lets authors return non-Futures from the callbacks (which I think
is a good idea, mind you). It's not actually an identity function,
The synchronous analog objections don't make sense. The analogue is
returning the Error object itself, which could certainly be reasonable
at times. Recursive unwrapping is like making "return new Error()"
identical to "throw new Error()". I don't even understand the
attempted analogy with f() and g() - chaining takes care of unwrapping
in all reasonable cases like that. Similarly, I don't think the Stack
Frame analogy has been well-thought-out - chaining Futures is the
analogy to stack frames, and that works just fine.
I'm not sure what the Parametricity Argument is.
However, all of this falls before the simple fact that recursive
unwrapping means that *no one can ever create any object with a
.then() method on it ever again*. If .then() is treated as the normal
monadic operation over Futures (that is, it unwraps one layer of its
return value), then you can safely return objects with a .then()
method by wrapping them in a Future with a method like
Future.accept(). (You can safely do this to *all* values unless
you're explicitly asking for chaining to happen.)
More information about the es-discuss