- From: Mounir Lamouri <mounir@lamouri.fr>
- Date: Thu, 09 May 2013 12:38:45 +0100
- To: www-dom@w3.org
On 08/05/13 18:52, Domenic Denicola wrote: > I think the less constraining approach is reasonable, although I question whether you'd need much extra beyond just a general agreement that all DOM specs use DOMError as their rejection reason. Stated another way, I think if you implemented the `Future<TValue, TReason>` idea, all DOM specs would just end up doing `Future<TValue, DOMError>`, which seems kind of pointless. As proposed in [1], I think the error type should be considered DOMError if not specified but I would like libraries to be able to describe their Future usage with that same syntax so it would still be interesting to define it. [1] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21422 -- Mounir
Received on Thursday, 9 May 2013 11:39:10 UTC