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

Re: Futures

From: David Bruant <bruant.d@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 14:37:51 +0200
Message-ID: <51752F1F.8070900@gmail.com>
To: Kevin Smith <zenparsing@gmail.com>
CC: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, Brendan Eich <brendan@mozilla.com>, "Mark S. Miller" <erights@google.com>, Douglas Crockford <douglas@crockford.com>, Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>, Norbert Lindenberg <w3@norbertlindenberg.com>, es-discuss <es-discuss@mozilla.org>
Le 22/04/2013 14:26, Kevin Smith a écrit :
>     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.
> What about using a symbol for the `then` protocol?  Libraries can be 
> upgraded to use the symbol as an alias for `then`.  It set up a 
> dependency on ES6, of course...
And it doesn't address the compatibility problem people want to address.
I personally wonder whether the compatibility with existing libraries is 
so important. It should be pretty easy to wrap a native future into a 
library future (aren't native futures already Promise/A+ compatible?) 
and vice versa. Why isn't it enough to help with compatibility with 

Eventually, what will be the point of a promise library if there is 
native support?

Received on Monday, 22 April 2013 12:38:21 UTC

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