On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.". >_<
>
Ok, Tab, this is getting close enough that I think we can hold a good tone
and get back asap to tech discussions. Given what you're trying to say, how
about a hypothetical:
What if we did have an unconditional lift operator....
I hope you appreciate the difference between this and your earlier
"you *can* do it in Futures,"
Let us all proceed assuming that this hypothetical is in good faith, and
everyone on all sides is open to changing their mind on this.
>
> ~TJ
>
--
Cheers,
--MarkM
Received on Friday, 3 May 2013 00:02:44 UTC