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

Re: Promises: final steps

From: John Barton <johnjbarton@google.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2013 09:19:41 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+2jLuKLyGE0MyUmsgdERoteF4TX9xG9UNhZgw81U9MtcvsDaw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Domenic Denicola <domenic@domenicdenicola.com>
Cc: Kevin Smith <zenparsing@gmail.com>, Kris Kowal <kris.kowal@cixar.com>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>, "www-dom@w3.org" <www-dom@w3.org>, es-discuss <es-discuss@mozilla.org>
On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 9:04 AM, Domenic Denicola <
domenic@domenicdenicola.com> wrote:

> From: Kevin Smith [zenparsing@gmail.com]
>
> > Indeed, for a non-GUI embedding like Node, they *must* be debuggable
> using just a console.
>
> This is an important point. A provisional idea that preserves our desire
> to not introduce new features to promises themselves, requiring user choice
> at authoring time, might be some kind of `console.unhandledRejections()`
> function which returns you a snapshot of the current unhandled rejections
> bucket.
>

IMO the promises library should not plan to push its undesired features
onto to console.  Unhandled rejections are a property of Promise, not
console.

jjb
Received on Thursday, 5 September 2013 16:20:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:37:50 UTC