Why thenables?

David Bruant bruant.d at gmail.com
Thu Oct 10 16:26:17 PDT 2013


Le 11/10/2013 01:19, Mark S. Miller a écrit :
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 3:39 PM, Rick Waldron <waldron.rick at gmail.com 
> <mailto:waldron.rick at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>
>     On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 6:26 PM, David Bruant <bruant.d at gmail.com
>     <mailto:bruant.d at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>         Hi,
>
>         The question of thenables came back on Mozilla's Bugzilla [1]
>         (see comment 29 & 30) with a decent share of skepticism that I
>         share too.
>
>         I'm sorry I didn't go through all the promises discussions,
>         but what's the rationale of supporting thenables? I fear this
>         feature won't be necessary 2 or 3 years after native promises
>         ship. For sure, it's of no use to those who only use native
>         promises.
>
>         I read from the meeting notes that it was pretty much the only
>         point of debate and a long one.
>
>
>     There was no long debate about thenables, only two requests for
>     clarification of their meaning and one request for explanation of
>     their backing store mechanism, all with immediate responses. The
>     notes reflect exactly that.
>
>
> yes.
>
>     I can't speak for Anne, with regard to comment#30, but I don't
>     recall him sharing any kind of skepticism during the conversation.
>     Hopefully he will clarify for us.
>
>
> Anne can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see any skepticism 
> expressed in comment 30 
> <https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=879245#c30>. It's a 
> reply to Jonas' 29. Interleaving the two:
>
>     Jonas:  So the spec ended up with support for thenables after all?
>     Rather than just doing branding :(
>
>     Anne: Yes
>
>     Jonas: I take it in order to be compatible with currently existing
>     libraries?
>
>     Anne: yes
>
>     Jonas: I guess if that's what TC39 decided on then that's what we
>     should do. But I'm definitely saddened by it. Like you say, the
>     past is shorter than the future.
>
>     Anne: agreed.
>
>
> I would have given Jonas the same answers. We agreed to thenable 
> assimilation for reasons that have been endlessly discussed. During 
> the process, everyone deeply involved always wished thenable 
> assimilation wasn't needed. But it is what we agreed to. We declared 
> an official TC39 consensus. There are now several implementation 
> efforts already proceeding based on that consensus -- probably many 
> more than we know of. This is not skepticism. It is agreeing that 
> "that's what we should do" while sharing Jonas' sadness.
Alright, let's do this then. Sorry for re-hashing.

Thanks for your answers,

David
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20131011/e49d5b33/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list