- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 14:12:58 +0100
- To: David Bruant <bruant.d@gmail.com>
- Cc: Kevin Smith <zenparsing@gmail.com>, Brendan Eich <brendan@mozilla.com>, "Mark S. Miller" <erights@google.com>, Douglas Crockford <douglas@crockford.com>, Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>, Norbert Lindenberg <w3@norbertlindenberg.com>, es-discuss <es-discuss@mozilla.org>
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 1:37 PM, David Bruant <bruant.d@gmail.com> wrote: > I personally wonder whether the compatibility with existing libraries is so > important. It should be pretty easy to wrap a native future into a library > future (aren't native futures already Promise/A+ compatible?) and vice > versa. Why isn't it enough to help with compatibility with libraries? They are compatible because of how futures make use of then. -- http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Monday, 22 April 2013 13:13:25 UTC