Re: [heycam/webidl] Some things do not seem sound in “react to a Promise<T>” (#943)

> As far as I know, there are no specs where the current behavior is a problem.

This is what kind of encourages me toward the "remove `<T>` from promise types entirely" path...

> I would have assumed that if a spec uses the two “shorthands,” behavior shouldn’t be observably different from if it had used one “react to” and passed both sets of steps.

IMO the issue is that upon rejection shouldn't be doing type conversion to `T` at all. So one fix would be to guard the conversion behind the existence of "set of steps to be run if the promise is fulfilled".

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/heycam/webidl/issues/943#issuecomment-740759937