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

Re: A Challenge Problem for Promise Designers

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 13:41:54 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDB5h0Jhd_3Ekh+Kg4iSSLg=nAtH_MXgPSxiDBuk1KWnKw@mail.gmail.com>
To: David Bruant <bruant.d@gmail.com>
Cc: Kevin Smith <zenparsing@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>
On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 1:39 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
> No.  Future callbacks can return Futures, which then chain (the return
> value of then adopts the state of the callback's return value).  This
> is the big "monad" benefit that we keep talking about.
[snip]

Shorter me: this is why I keep asking people who want flattening to
actually provide an example of where flattening is useful, that isn't
(a) assimilation, (b) a result of weird language semantics from some
non-JS language, or (c) an authoring error.

So far, I haven't gotten one!  Every concrete example I've received so
far just shows off assimilation, or a misunderstanding of what JS
promises/futures do.  :/

~TJ
Received on Friday, 26 April 2013 20:42:40 UTC

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