Promises: final steps

Aymeric Vitte vitteaymeric at gmail.com
Sun Sep 8 14:01:38 PDT 2013


I have not read everything about the promise/future/re-promise subject 
but what I have read seems to show that everyone has a personal 
understanding of the thing.

So please see 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcrypto/2013Sep/0003.html , 
code example that I have written for WebCrypto (ie real working case not 
using WebCrypto rewritten with WebCrypto promises), as explained I am 
using 'done' despite of the fact that it might be removed, because I 
don't see why I should use 'then' if I am not chaining anything.

As explained again, the example shows maybe that promises here are a 
kind of artifice, until other APIs implement promises.

How should I write this without 'done'?

Regards

Aymeric

Le 08/09/2013 19:06, Anne van Kesteren a écrit :
> (Added back the other lists.)
>
> On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 3:58 AM, Brendan Eich <brendan at secure.meer.net> wrote:
>> Let's put done back in. It's the right thing.
> Given what has been said thus far
> https://github.com/domenic/promises-unwrapping/issues/19 my
> inclination is still to leave it out initially and give a version
> without done() six months to a year to mature. Not having done() can
> make promises harder to debug in the short term, but adding done() is
> trivial to do later. And given the lack of native promise
> implementations to date there's no way for us to test the done()-less
> design without trying it first.
>
>

-- 
jCore
Email :  avitte at jcore.fr
Peersm : http://www.peersm.com
iAnonym : http://www.ianonym.com
node-Tor : https://www.github.com/Ayms/node-Tor
GitHub : https://www.github.com/Ayms
Web :    www.jcore.fr
Extract Widget Mobile : www.extractwidget.com
BlimpMe! : www.blimpme.com



More information about the es-discuss mailing list