Promises Consensus with /A+ terminology

Anne van Kesteren annevk at
Thu Aug 1 09:09:43 PDT 2013

On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 5:07 PM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk at> wrote:
> I basically took Tab's email and rewrote the terminology. I omitted
> the issues for brevity. Hopefully this helps.

Having done that. I wonder if we could leave the monad part out for
now. As Mark pointed out in the other thread it causes a bunch of
headaches to get that correct, and since we already decided (I
believe) to not break with existing practice we could ship the subset
that is that and figure out the superset-promise-that-works-for-monads
later. That might also give us some insight into how many people will
want to wrap promises to make the monad-suitable.


More information about the es-discuss mailing list