- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2014 20:13:06 +0000
- To: public-script-coord@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=26517 --- Comment #9 from Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> --- (In reply to Marcos Caceres from comment #8) > (In reply to Ian 'Hixie' Hickson from comment #7) > > I would much rather > > be able to write: > > > > Promise<Foo> bar(); > > > > ...than have to write: > > > > interface Whatever { }; > > typedef (Promise<Foo> or Whatever) PromiseFoo; > > > > PromiseFoo bar(); > > > > ...which is what I'm currently forced to do to describe APIs that throw in > > certain cases and return promises when they don't throw. > > IIUC, what we are trying to agree on is what model we use for the Web (what > the web used from the beginning of time or this new model that is currently > in WebIDL - or something in between, where there is a very good reason to > not have the promise handle the error through rejection). If you've managed > to cleverly hack around it using a typedef doesn't really address the core > problem - as whatever API you put that on may be rejected by implementers > unless we get agreement on the idiom to use. Indeed. I'll strongly recommend not implementing such a pattern to any implementors of a feature you write that for; it's clumsy and won't match the rest of the platform. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 5 August 2014 20:13:07 UTC