New Promise Syntax Proposal

Isiah Meadows isiahmeadows at gmail.com
Mon Nov 6 15:28:15 UTC 2017


I'm not convinced of the need. Promises are already sufficient, and in
general use, I rarely use the constructor outside of adapting
callback-related code or other lower-level cases.

Also, keep in mind, most such promise-returning functions do have
arguments, which this proposal seems to miss.

On Mon, Nov 6, 2017, 10:23 Jorge Téllez <novohispano at gmail.com> wrote:

> I would like to propose a new syntax for promises for the next ECMAScript.
>
> It is common to define promises in the following way:
>
> function promiseFunction() {
>   return new Promise(resolve, reject) {
>     resolve(someValue);
>   };
> }
>
> In the previous example, I am declaring a function so that I can access
> the promise throughout.
>
> I would like propose a simpler syntax to remove this redundancy:
>
> promise promiseFunction(resolve, reject) {
>   resolve(someValue);
> }
>
> This will make the promise declaration easier to read in a similar fashion
> as the new class syntax made it easier to declare prototypes.
>
> __
> Jorge Téllez
> +52 1 81 2567 8257
> @novohispano <http://twitter.com/novohispano>
>
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20171106/658fe8cc/attachment.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list