Re: [fetch] Aborting a fetch (#27)

Hi @mariusGundersen , that looks like my first example except one part:

> When a promise has been ignored then from the outside it looks like a forever pending promise.

I thought that was the thing developers were scared the most, having forever pending Promises around, hence my silent resolution that if `undefined` as value, it's pretty clear the resolution itself is useless, but not forever pending.

I do like the fact you used `onIgnored` in the way and same place I put `onCanceled` but I'd like to understand if forever pending **is** actually a real-world concern 'cause I might bake yet another version of my initial logic that simply ends up doing what your one does.

The way I see it, you need somehow a "flagged as forever-pending" state in order to let engines understand there's no reason to hold everything else "`.then`ed" after ...

TL;DR why do you think forever pending is the way to go, and how can it let engines understand that's a meant forever pending and not a regular Promise to actually wait for?

On the other side, I see "forever pending" like a concatenation of operations through Arrays so that even if `filter` reduced it to 0, all others `map` and `reduce` in the queue will "vanish" without problems. Still we need a "forever pending" state ( and I also start thinking that `.regret()` would probably be even more appropriate term for this whole story )

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/whatwg/fetch/issues/27#issuecomment-90673754