W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-script-coord@w3.org > April to June 2013

Re: A Challenge Problem for Promise Designers (was: Re: Futures)

From: Kevin Smith <zenparsing@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 08:54:26 -0400
Message-ID: <CA+mDt2xzOOCCDA585PUKj0LJJdUjuWSwUf6sw_yvC5fiPCUaiw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Andreas Rossberg <rossberg@google.com>
Cc: David Bruant <bruant.d@gmail.com>, "Mark S. Miller" <erights@google.com>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>, Mark Miller <erights@gmail.com>, Dean Tribble <tribble@e-dean.com>, es-discuss <es-discuss@mozilla.org>
What exactly is the controversy here?

I think we all agree with the semantics of "then" as specified in
Promises/A+.  (If not, then we have a really big problem!)

If so, then the only real controversy is whether or not the API allows one
to create a promise whose eventual value is itself a promise.  Q does not:
 it provides only "resolve" and "reject".  DOM Futures do by way of
"Future.accept".  As far as I know, there's nothing about Q's
implementation that would make such a function impossible, it just does not
provide one.

Do I have that right so far?

{ Kevin }
Received on Friday, 26 April 2013 12:54:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:37:49 UTC