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

@NekR 

> CancelablePromise also will be affected by "action at a distance" concern, right? 

Of course it will, that's why I've vehemently argued against there being any such notion as a "Cancelable Promise" either by subclass or extension of existing `Promise`.

> Then how it matters which class it will be, CancelablePromise or just Promise?

For `fetch(..)` it doesn't, but I said "setting aside `fetch(..)`", which was just in support of Jake's assertion that it'd be too dangerous (aka, unacceptable) to just make core promises cancelable, as that makes an existing (non-`fetch(..)`, even) promise system susceptible to AaaD.

If you read my many messages earlier in the thread, I've already said my peace for why promise cancelation is entirely not the way to solve the issues desired here. I won't reargue those sentiments, for the sake of readers here. I'm just narrowly responding to the seeming confusion over whether there's any reasonability to just making `Promise` itself cancelable, and Jake is entirely correct: there's not.

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/whatwg/fetch/issues/27#issuecomment-93856707