Promises Consensus with /A+ terminology
Tab Atkins Jr.
jackalmage at gmail.com
Thu Aug 1 10:00:30 PDT 2013
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 9:09 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk at annevk.nl> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 5:07 PM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk at annevk.nl> wrote:
>> I basically took Tab's email and rewrote the terminology. I omitted
>> the issues for brevity. Hopefully this helps.
Sorry, I was waiting until Mark and Domenic had finished up their
terminology discussion before I did a third rewrite.
> 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.
Let's not reopen this, please. The way I've outlined things means
that then()-based stuff works compatibly with the existing spec, so
that's not a concern. We've already had long threads about why nested
promises are useful (namely, that "promise" in practice isn't a single
type - you have multiple types of promises from different promise
sources, and don't always want to smash them together).
More information about the es-discuss