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

Re: Future cancellation

From: Bill Frantz <frantz@pwpconsult.com>
Date: Thu, 2 May 2013 05:40:13 -0700
To: Bill Frantz <frantz@pwpconsult.com>
cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, public-script-coord@w3.org, Brendan Eich <brendan@mozilla.com>, es-discuss <es-discuss@mozilla.org>
Message-ID: <r422Ps-1075i-CB0FC6E952334D1385F1A22BDC021748@Williams-MacBook-Pro.local>
On 5/1/13 at 5:43 PM, frantz@pwpconsult.com (Bill Frantz) wrote:

>On 5/1/13 at 1:37 PM, jackalmage@gmail.com (Tab Atkins Jr.) wrote:
>
>>Ah, I'm not proposing that we augment the base Future class with
>>cancellation properties.  I explicitly used the term "subtype" in the
>>quoted bit above.  *Some* of Ron's suggestions were to augment the
>>base Future class, but not all of them, and several other people
>>pushed back on that.
>
>I think that covers the issue.
>
>Cheers - Bill

Upon further reflection, I think the point about premature 
standardization stands.

Also, a pure inheritance model -- which is implied by 
subclassing -- may be the wrong model. If one wants to include 
POLA in one's programming style, one will probably want to 
separate the authority to access the resulting value from the 
authority to abort the computation.

Cheers - Bill

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Frantz        | gets() remains as a monument | Periwinkle
(408)356-8506      | to C's continuing support of | 16345 
Englewood Ave
www.pwpconsult.com | buffer overruns.             | Los Gatos, 
CA 95032
Received on Thursday, 2 May 2013 12:40:41 UTC

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