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: Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 14:28:04 +0100
Message-ID: <CANr5HFWZkWtpGUq1GZcsfXaARGCW3K9q1AP4C1NHxk9oSYEsBA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kevin Smith <zenparsing@gmail.com>
Cc: es-discuss Steen <es-discuss@mozilla.org>, Dean Tribble <tribble@e-dean.com>, "Mark S. Miller" <erights@google.com>, Mark Miller <erights@gmail.com>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>, Andreas Rossberg <rossberg@google.com>
Yes, you do.
On Apr 26, 2013 2:54 PM, "Kevin Smith" <zenparsing@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 }
>
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss@mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>
>
Received on Friday, 26 April 2013 13:28:32 UTC

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