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

Re: Futures

From: Mark S. Miller <erights@google.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2013 05:37:21 -0700
Message-ID: <CABHxS9hG6RyvBoLwPZM9A_=y=fPX3jmV1+5n5ff8XJEQFgKwtw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>
Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Kevin Smith <zenparsing@gmail.com>, Brendan Eich <brendan@mozilla.com>, EcmaScript <es-discuss@mozilla.org>, Norbert Lindenberg <w3@norbertlindenberg.com>, Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>, Douglas Crockford <douglas@crockford.com>
On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 1:59 AM, Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>wrote:

> On Friday, April 26, 2013, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>
>> wrote:
>> > On Apr 26, 2013 8:33 PM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 11:25 AM, Kevin Smith <zenparsing@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > Actually, I may have gotten it terribly wrong (apologies).  In my
>> >> > prototype
>> >> > implementation, the following:
>> >> >
>> >> >     Future.accept(Future.resolve(1)).then(value => {
>> >> >
>> >> >         console.log(value !== 1);
>> >> >         return Future.accept(Future.resolve(1));
>> >> >
>> >> >     }).then(value => {
>> >> >
>> >> >         console.log(value === 1);
>> >> >     });
>> >> >
>> >> > logs
>> >> >
>> >> > - true
>> >> > - true
>> >> >
>> >> > Is that what it should be doing, according to the DOM spec?  Anne,
>> Alex?
>> >>
>> >> No, it should be "true", then "false".
>> >>
>> >> Future.resolve(1) returns a Future<1>.
>> >>
>> >> Future.accept(Future.resolve(1)) returns Future<Future<1>>.
>> >
>> > This would all be easier to discuss if you weren't writing using
>> invented
>> > methods.
>>
>> I'm using the methods defined in the Futures spec, because we're
>> talking about the behavior of Futures.
>>
>
>
> Ugg...sorry. I wasn't aware the API had grown this much since I last
> looked at it. If there is consensus about the new methods, so be it.
>

There is not. Neither is there consensus about the old ones.

-- 
    Cheers,
    --MarkM
Received on Saturday, 27 April 2013 12:37:48 UTC

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