https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=25048 --- Comment #8 from Domenic Denicola <d@domenic.me> --- (In reply to Boris Zbarsky from comment #7) > OK, I guess if you only have one promise representing your state then it > makes sense to make it an attribute. But then I'm not sure it makes sense to > have that attribute create-and-return promises when called with the wrong > this object. > > Put another way, I strongly feel like for attribute getters we should > preserve the invariant that getter.call(obj) == getter.call(obj) tests true. I disagree that this invariant applies here. Its synchronous analogue is saying that getter.call(obj), when it fails, should always throw the same error. It's OK to return a different promise in the failure cases. > As far as setters, if we have no use cases, let's not add complexity and > just disallow them. WebIDL already has too many unused (and never will be > used!) things that just make it more complex than it should be. Sounds good to me to disallow promise types with setters. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.Received on Thursday, 13 October 2016 13:37:27 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:25 UTC