- From: Kostiainen, Anssi <anssi.kostiainen@intel.com>
- Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 15:15:03 +0000
- To: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>, "Sysapps@w3.org" <public-sysapps@w3.org>
- CC: "reeder_29@yahoo.com" <reeder_29@yahoo.com>
On 15 May 2014, at 18:00, Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com> wrote: > > On May 15, 2014 at 8:51:48 AM, Kostiainen, Anssi (anssi.kostiainen@intel.com) wrote: >> On 14 May 2014, at 16:40, Marcos Caceres wrote: >> >>> On May 14, 2014 at 4:51:14 AM, Kostiainen, Anssi (anssi.kostiainen@intel.com) wrote: >>>>> Promise hasPermission (); >>> >>> Seems unnecessary to have this return a promise, IMO. Just make it an attribute. >> >> Yeah, the reason for that was to make it work with Promise.all as suggested by Nikhil. >> However, it seems whatever passed to Promise.all is converted to a promise by means of >> Promise.cast, so we could make it an attribute as you suggest. >> >> Details aside, I think the main question is does such an interface make sense in the first >> place? > > Like I said previously, I think the only way to know is to work through some example cases with real code. Doing thought experiments can only get us so far. We would also need to find a few more example cases in the wild and then we can take those to the appropriate WGs. I actually already asked Nikhil in the GH issue from where this idea originated from whether he has been doing further exploration in code. If someone comes up with other experiments, please let us know. Thanks, -Anssi
Received on Thursday, 15 May 2014 15:16:59 UTC