- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2013 09:03:27 -0700
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- Cc: es-discuss <es-discuss@mozilla.org>, "www-dom@w3.org" <www-dom@w3.org>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>
On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 6:37 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote: > As many of you hopefully know, we're trying to nail down the design of > promises in JavaScript so we can declare consensus on it and start > shipping it in implementations. If you're interested in the > particulars I strongly recommend reading through > https://github.com/domenic/promises-unwrapping/blob/master/README.md > and partaking in the > https://github.com/domenic/promises-unwrapping/issues discussion. The > next TC39 is coming close and this really needs to be resolved (not > settled!) by then as there are many APIs relying on promises now. > > Eg in https://github.com/domenic/promises-unwrapping/issues/8 we > decided on Promise.cast() as IsPromise(x) ? x : Promise.resolve(x). > > https://github.com/domenic/promises-unwrapping/issues/18 suggests > adding Promise.prototype.finally() and > https://github.com/domenic/promises-unwrapping/issues/13 discusses > which convenience methods we should add in the first iteration. > > I suggest we focus on the minimal subset that works (which I know is > different for people, but let's aim for consensus) and then iterate > again after we have a couple of implementations out there. I'm fine with the subset defined in Domenic's spec - it's compatible with what we've discussed, and is easy to extend into the flatMap semantics I want. I've commented on the issue threads in github. ~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 3 September 2013 16:04:18 UTC