Killing `Promise.fulfill`

Mark S. Miller erights at google.com
Mon Aug 19 20:36:07 PDT 2013


Hi Kevin, I misinterpreted you. By "earlier", I thought you were referring
to the promise APIs in actual use which are compatible with Promises/A+.
These do not create promises-for-promises (auto-flattening or auto-lifting
depending on how you want to think about it) and they recursively unwrap
thenables (assimilation). The first, auto-flattening/auto-lifting, is a
requirement for the .then-oriented promise patterns in use, as has been
discussed exhaustively here and on Promises/A+. The second, assimilation,
is an unfortunate but expedient hack that enables multiple promise
libraries to co-exist. The origin of the modern JS promises is the promise
system of the E language which had auto-flattening/auto-lifting but no
assimilation, since co-existence was not an issue.

The "earlier" you are talking about, IIUC, is the monadic promise variant.
Monads are fine things, and a monadic promise=like abstraction would
probably be useful for some things. However, it is a very different
abstraction and it does not support the .then oriented patterns that JS
promises are used with. I think we would be better off omitting these from
standard promises, but we cannot get quick consensus on a promise system
which omits them. Without a quick consensus, DOM will do something else.
Fortunately, AP2 allows these to live together in one API more painlessly
than I had thought possible.



On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 7:17 PM, Kevin Smith <zenparsing at gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks Mark.
>
> To clarify my overly brief interjection, I tend to favor the conceptual
> simplicity of the earlier "DOM" API.  Specifically:
>
> - no "flatMap"
> - the output of then is single-unwrapped
> - no recursive unwrapping
>
> I find it more simple from a conceptual standpoint because each promise
> simply resolves to some value (possibly a promise) which can be accessed
> via then.
>
> If I remember correctly, AP2 was motivated by the need to support both
> recursive unrwapping and single-unwrapping with a single API.  It is a
> clever solution, to be sure.  But can we not simply provide a recursive
> unwrapping helper function?
>
>     Promise.when(unknown).then(unwrapped => console.log(unwrapped));
>
> In this case, `unwrapped` will be the result of recursively unwrapping
> `unknown`, if `unknown` is a promise, and the value `unknown` otherwise.
>
> { Kevin }
>
>
>


-- 
    Cheers,
    --MarkM
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20130819/9ca8879b/attachment.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list