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

(Unrelated but oops, I totally blanked on this, thanks for commenting since I’d forgotten.)

I agree. If the sole value of Web IDL type descriptors was specifying conversions from ES, then it would seem to follow that there’d be no reason for readonly attributes or operations to indicate their types or return types. That said, Promise does seem like kind of a weird case since it’s so tied up with ES and I can see why it might be deemed more trouble than its worth.

-- 
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-767938884