Re: A Challenge Problem for Promise Designers (was: Re: Futures)

Yes, you do.
On Apr 26, 2013 2:54 PM, "Kevin Smith" <zenparsing@gmail.com> wrote:

> What exactly is the controversy here?
>
> I think we all agree with the semantics of "then" as specified in
> Promises/A+.  (If not, then we have a really big problem!)
>
> If so, then the only real controversy is whether or not the API allows one
> to create a promise whose eventual value is itself a promise.  Q does not:
>  it provides only "resolve" and "reject".  DOM Futures do by way of
> "Future.accept".  As far as I know, there's nothing about Q's
> implementation that would make such a function impossible, it just does not
> provide one.
>
> Do I have that right so far?
>
> { Kevin }
>
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss@mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>
>