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 15:21:55 +0200
Message-ID: <51753973.7050505@gmail.com>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
CC: Kevin Smith <zenparsing@gmail.com>, 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 15:12, Anne van Kesteren a écrit :
> On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 1:37 PM, David Bruant <bruant.d@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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 libraries?
> They are compatible because of how futures make use of then.
Were they not, how big of a burden would wrapping be?
Especially given that it's only for a transitioning period where native 
(or polyfilled) have to cohabit with previous library promises?

Received on Monday, 22 April 2013 13:22:24 UTC

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