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

RE: A Challenge Problem for Promise Designers

From: Domenic Denicola <domenic@domenicdenicola.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 19:47:34 +0000
To: David Bruant <bruant.d@gmail.com>, Rick Waldron <waldron.rick@gmail.com>
CC: "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>, es-discuss <es-discuss@mozilla.org>
Message-ID: <B4AE8F4E86E26C47AC407D49872F6F9F7EF5CC25@BY2PRD0510MB354.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
From: David Bruant [bruant.d@gmail.com]

> Which naturally leads to the question: why should platform promises be compatible with Promise/A+ and not jQuery "promises"? Because more libraries use Promise/A+? what about market share?

What we're discussing is not *compatibility* but *ability to assimilate*. Assimilating thenables requires no particular spec compliance or library compatibility. Promises/A+ (in the 1.1 version) gives a step-by-step procedure for doing so that is quite resilient in the face of edge cases, and so I'd recommend it for any assimilation semantics, but that's not terribly relevant to the question of whether there should be assimilation semantics *at all*.
Received on Friday, 26 April 2013 19:48:06 UTC

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