- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 2 May 2013 16:44:33 -0700
- To: "Mark S. Miller" <erights@google.com>
- Cc: Domenic Denicola <domenic@domenicdenicola.com>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>
On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 4:39 PM, Mark S. Miller <erights@google.com> wrote: > Tab Atkins said: >> The relevant questions are: do we recursively flatten native promises >> too? (Let's, please, assume that it is possible to make nested >> promises. Saying "but you can't" isn't helpful, because you *can* do >> it in Futures, > > This statement directly contradicts Jonas' account of what it means at this stage in the process to be noodling on a draft standard. Are we discussing what the standard should contain or not? This still comes across as you making a non-negotiable demand that Futures will do unconditional lifting. If you've already made up your mind about what Futures will and won't do, why are we discussing it? Because I'm trying to figure out what they should do! But you keep answering my attempts with responses that say, roughly, "Well, you can't have nested promises anyway, so the question is moot.". >_< ~TJ
Received on Thursday, 2 May 2013 23:45:21 UTC