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

Re: Promises: final steps

From: Kevin Smith <zenparsing@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2013 13:21:35 -0400
Message-ID: <CA+mDt2y8vy614ZkB4noKjvtmWJf=pDV1EXLYjXy4kfBKqALYtw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Domenic Denicola <domenic@domenicdenicola.com>
Cc: 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>
> It's not clear to me why this, or your `Promise.throw`, is better than
>
> ```js
> somePromise.done(...)
> // or
> somePromise.then(...).done()
> ```


Not *much* better, I'd say, but IMO a `done` method which accepts a
callback overlaps too much with `then`, and a `done` method without a
callback just looks like a wart in need of removal.  : )

Visually, to me, wrapping beats capping.  But that's just me.

In the end, I like neither wrapping nor capping.  In my own work I've
preferred to define conditions under which certain rejections are
interpreted as program errors, thereby avoiding the wrapping/capping issue
entirely.  (I can elaborate if anyone's interested.)

{ Kevin }
Received on Thursday, 5 September 2013 17:22:10 UTC

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