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

RE: Futures

From: Domenic Denicola <domenic@domenicdenicola.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 19:31:10 +0000
To: Juan Ignacio Dopazo <dopazo.juan@gmail.com>, Kevin Smith <zenparsing@gmail.com>
CC: "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>, EcmaScript <es-discuss@mozilla.org>
Message-ID: <B4AE8F4E86E26C47AC407D49872F6F9F7EF5CB0E@BY2PRD0510MB354.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
From: Juan Ignacio Dopazo [dopazo.juan@gmail.com]

> 2013/4/26 Kevin Smith <zenparsing@gmail.com>
>>>> Oops yeah. I guess that should be fixed. :/
>>> Fixing that would break compatibility with Promises/A+. To remain compatible with A+ and unwrap only one layer, the spec would need a way to discern promises from thenables.
>> I don't think so.  It has no bearing on Promises/A+, because A+ doesn't test the case where the promise's value is itself a promise. 

> Yes, sorry. It will on version 1.1: https://github.com/promises-aplus/promises-spec/#the-promise-resolution-procedure

To clarify: in 1.0, the behavior of returning a thenable was highly underspecified, in part because of a lack of clarity about promises vs. thenables. In 1.1, returning a thenable is now specified in the same detail as the rest of the spec, and (of course) has accompanying tests.

Received on Friday, 26 April 2013 19:31:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:13 UTC