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:
> The question of thenables came back on Mozilla's Bugzilla 
> (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
> 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.
> 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
> 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,
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the es-discuss