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

Re: Futures

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 11:51:55 +0100
Message-ID: <CADnb78hCA3m_C9+-Mvh7aK-yjLS6PJS61ZE2Z9iXV3ZyAgpyzg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kevin Smith <zenparsing@gmail.com>
Cc: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Brendan Eich <brendan@mozilla.com>, "Mark S. Miller" <erights@google.com>, Douglas Crockford <douglas@crockford.com>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>, Norbert Lindenberg <w3@norbertlindenberg.com>, Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>, es-discuss <es-discuss@mozilla.org>
On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 4:58 AM, Kevin Smith <zenparsing@gmail.com> wrote:
>> In particular, I'd love to get TC39 to look over the "is-a-future"
>> issue. I'm pretty worried about the current solution which makes
>> "then" a magic property name. It's less bad than "__proto__" is, but
>> not by a lot.
> I agree - I'm putting together a list of a few issues with Futures that I
> would like to see addressed, and this is one.

Thenable futures are uglier than branded futures, but also the only
way to remain compatible with the various libraries that are out there
today, which is something many people value.

Received on Monday, 22 April 2013 10:52:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:12 UTC