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

Re: Promises: Auto-assimilating thenables returned by .then() callbacks: yay/nay?

From: Mark S. Miller <erights@google.com>
Date: Thu, 2 May 2013 17:02:17 -0700
Message-ID: <CABHxS9i1j2RmEeDNaKNNmdtyCtiL94wF60Oo916+BWunDAJ9Eg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: Domenic Denicola <domenic@domenicdenicola.com>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>
On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 4:39 PM, Mark S. Miller <erights@google.com> wrote:
> > Tab Atkins said:
> >> The relevant questions are:  do we recursively flatten native promises
> >> too?  (Let's, please, assume that it is possible to make nested
> >> promises.  Saying "but you can't" isn't helpful, because you *can* do
> >> it in Futures,
> >
> > This statement directly contradicts Jonas' account of what it means at
> this stage in the process to be noodling on a draft standard. Are we
> discussing what the standard should contain or not? This still comes across
> as you making a non-negotiable demand that Futures will do unconditional
> lifting. If you've already made up your mind about what Futures will and
> won't do, why are we discussing it?
>
> Because I'm trying to figure out what they should do!  But you keep
> answering my attempts with responses that say, roughly, "Well, you
> can't have nested promises anyway, so the question is moot.".  >_<
>


Ok, Tab, this is getting close enough that I think we can hold a good tone
and get back asap to tech discussions. Given what you're trying to say, how
about a hypothetical:

   What if we did have an unconditional lift operator....

I hope you appreciate the difference between this and your earlier

    "you *can* do it in Futures,"

Let us all proceed assuming that this hypothetical is in good faith, and
everyone on all sides is open to changing their mind on this.


>
> ~TJ
>



-- 
    Cheers,
    --MarkM
Received on Friday, 3 May 2013 00:02:44 UTC

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