Re: [heycam/webidl] Some things do not seem sound in “react to a Promise<T>” (#943) from Jan-Ivar Bruaroey on 2021-01-27 (public-webapps-github@w3.org from January 2021)

From: Jan-Ivar Bruaroey <notifications@github.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2021 16:49:36 -0800
To: heycam/webidl <webidl@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <heycam/webidl/issues/943/767930245@github.com>

> Remove the `<T>` from promise types entirely. It seems this better matches implementations.

Hi, sorry for jumping into a rather technical discussion about things over my head, but I'd wager promises are predominantly output-to-JS, not input-from-ES, so I'm not convinced the value of `<T>` should hang in the balance over problems in the latter category.

In my view `Promise<T>` has normative value in declaring API outputs that user agents MUST implement even if WebIDL tools can't enforce anything about them. I'm very thankful that they exist.🙏 ❤️ See https://github.com/heycam/webidl/issues/951#issuecomment-767915892.


-- 
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-767930245

Received on Wednesday, 27 January 2021 00:49:48 UTC