- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2013 11:37:37 +0100
- To: "Mark S. Miller" <erights@google.com>
- Cc: Domenic Denicola <domenic@domenicdenicola.com>, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt <samth@ccs.neu.edu>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Sean Hogan <shogun70@westnet.com.au>, "www-dom@w3.org" <www-dom@w3.org>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>, Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>, es-discuss <es-discuss@mozilla.org>
On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Mark S. Miller <erights@google.com> wrote: > Given this direction, I think the one operation that serves as both > Promise.resolve and Promise.fulfill should be the previously suggested > Promise.of. I think you still want Promise.resolve because it makes sense with Promise.reject and the instance methods on PromiseResolver. Promise.of would be a good alias to have. > I am always worried though when people use the term "unwrapping" as I > don't know what they mean. Does this mean flattening, assimilating, both, or > something else? What I mean here is to so one level of flattening. As for > whether .then should also do one level of assimilation if it sees a > non-promise thenable, I could go either way, but prefer that it should not. > The promise-cross-thenable case should be sufficiently rare that the cost of > the extra bookkeeping should be negligible. Sorry for the confusion. I thought you guys had already settled on accepting what the DOM standard currently defines (no branding checks of any kind, just use a callable then property, if any). If that's not the case, writing out the desired behavior for then()/flatMap() here would help. -- http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Wednesday, 5 June 2013 10:38:14 UTC