Re: Futures

On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 12:47 PM, Kevin Smith <zenparsing@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>  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?
>


I would love to see this, but best I can tell it can't be a straitforward
polyfill. The necessary infrastructure has to settle, and what are
Promises/A+ implementers supposed to do in the meantime?

Unless a reasonably elegant solution can be found I suspect any es promises
proposal will include support for thenables. I spent a lot of time thinking
about it a few years back and couldn't find one, so I remain skeptical.