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

It does make sense to me but I've created something I had to explain
already few times because unknown as pattern. I think this is inevitable
though, we need to re-think promises in order to find a successful cancel
pattern, IMO, cause what we have now does not simply work for that :-)
On Mar 30, 2015 2:47 PM, "Jake Archibald" <notifications@github.com> wrote:

> @WebReflection <https://github.com/WebReflection>
>
> However in my initial design .cancel(why) was working as resolution for
> the promise
>
> Well, because of the scoping of your cancel function (which looks weird
> but is great in practice), you have easy access to resolve and reject.
> Maybe, after the cancel callback is called, reject(undefined) is called
> automatically. That means the cancel callback *could* call resolve/reject
> itself. That means the creator of the promise could resolve with a partial
> value if that makes sense.
>
> —
> Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
> <https://github.com/whatwg/fetch/issues/27#issuecomment-87664371>.
>


---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/whatwg/fetch/issues/27#issuecomment-87667735