W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-script-coord@w3.org > January to March 2015

Re: Cancellation architectural observations

From: Kevin Smith <zenparsing@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2015 18:30:00 -0500
Message-ID: <CA+mDt2yUHyvW5y=w4PJYB-2LbM9BWZsO1=H2Gb-G+jW12tgVJg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: Dean Tribble <tribble@e-dean.com>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>, es-discuss <es-discuss@mozilla.org>
>
>
> I'm not sure!  The mapping between promises and async functions isn't
> intuitive to me yet, and I'm not sure how async functions will be able
> to produce promise subclasses rather than plain promises.
>

Fair enough.  I think, though, that one of the design goals for a
cancellation architecture needs to be that we are able to created
cancelable tasks with async functions.

My intuition here is that async functions rely on the fact that promises
convey no information or capability other than what is represented by their
completion value.  That's what enables us to make the leap from promise API
to declarative syntax.
Received on Monday, 2 March 2015 23:30:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 March 2015 23:30:28 UTC