Re: Promise<void> or Promise<undefined>?, was Re: RfC: pre-LC version of Screen Orientation; deadline August 18

I don't like just "resolve p" as by itself a phrase for your meaning,
because, in promise terminology, resolving a promise p does not imply that
p is fulfilled or even settled. Resolving p to q, where q is an unsettled
promise, leaves p unsettled but still resolved.

If, in the WebIDL world, you'd rather say "resolve p with void" rather than
"resolve p with undefined" or better "fulfill p with undefined", that would
not make the current WebIDL situation any worse, so fine. It would merely
be part of WebIDL's continued presumption to describe non-JS APIs, with the
(mostly pointless) cost of making WebIDL a worse language for describing JS

But please not simply "resolve p".

On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 2:06 PM, Marcos Caceres <> wrote:

> On August 14, 2014 at 5:01:24 PM, Marcos Caceres (
> wrote:
> > > I don't feel strongly about it either. To me, it's probably more
> > clear to just say "resolve p", because it doesn't imply that one
> > is passing an actual thing to the resolver (where "resolve p"*
> * Sorry, here I meant "resolve p with `undefined`"
> > looks like, in a JS implementation of WebIDL: `resolver(undefined)`
> > even if equivalent to just calling `resolver()`). I guess generally,
> > unless one is resolving with something, maybe it's best to just
> > exclude the "" altogether, as it's should be implied to
> > be void.


Received on Thursday, 14 August 2014 21:16:15 UTC