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

Re: Futures

From: Kevin Smith <zenparsing@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 12:47:53 -0400
Message-ID: <CA+mDt2xGARdKy4nSh1=Tj70fYezyyp2gTmeMUngxNpicXy6pFg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dean Landolt <dean@deanlandolt.com>
Cc: Domenic Denicola <domenic@domenicdenicola.com>, 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>
> FWIW I disagree with him -- I strongly suspect that by the time this were
> to all go down and a stable polyfill existed there'd already be too much
> then-demanding code in the wild. There probably already is. And at that
> point it's __proto__ all over again -- the standard will have no choice but
> to respect then and the problem cannot be fixed :-/
Why not?  If the `then` symbol is well-known (e.g. easily imported from
somewhere), then why can't libraries be upgraded to use it as an alias for
their `then` method?

{ Kevin }
Received on Monday, 22 April 2013 16:48:20 UTC

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