Anne van Kesteren
annevk at annevk.nl
Tue Aug 20 07:02:03 PDT 2013
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 2:48 AM, Mark S. Miller <erights at google.com> wrote:
> I agree that an AP2 system, which is what we are discussing, should not have
> a method named .fulfill for the reasons you state. A promise which, at the
> AP2.flatMap level is "accepted" or "adopted" is, at the AP2.then level
> "resolved". I suggest the method in question be called .resolve, that it
> accept, not recursively unwrap/flatten/assimilate at all. The AP2.flatMap
> programmer will understand .resolve as accepting. The AP2.then programmer
> will understand .resolve as resolving.
I remembered we previously reached this conclusion and then you ended
up reversing yourself:
something change or am I misinterpreting something?
(I'm in favor of removing fulfill() myself, for what it's worth.)
More information about the es-discuss