W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-dom@w3.org > July to September 2013

Re: Promises: final steps

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2013 09:03:27 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDBd0Q4+q6E=jq-YJ27tjRtv2y9RB5mS7aaE8ee-eaQnsw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
Cc: es-discuss <es-discuss@mozilla.org>, "www-dom@w3.org" <www-dom@w3.org>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>
On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 6:37 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote:
> As many of you hopefully know, we're trying to nail down the design of
> promises in JavaScript so we can declare consensus on it and start
> shipping it in implementations. If you're interested in the
> particulars I strongly recommend reading through
> https://github.com/domenic/promises-unwrapping/blob/master/README.md
> and partaking in the
> https://github.com/domenic/promises-unwrapping/issues discussion. The
> next TC39 is coming close and this really needs to be resolved (not
> settled!) by then as there are many APIs relying on promises now.
> Eg in https://github.com/domenic/promises-unwrapping/issues/8 we
> decided on Promise.cast() as IsPromise(x) ? x : Promise.resolve(x).
> https://github.com/domenic/promises-unwrapping/issues/18 suggests
> adding Promise.prototype.finally() and
> https://github.com/domenic/promises-unwrapping/issues/13 discusses
> which convenience methods we should add in the first iteration.
> I suggest we focus on the minimal subset that works (which I know is
> different for people, but let's aim for consensus) and then iterate
> again after we have a couple of implementations out there.

I'm fine with the subset defined in Domenic's spec - it's compatible
with what we've discussed, and is easy to extend into the flatMap
semantics I want.

I've commented on the issue threads in github.

Received on Tuesday, 3 September 2013 16:04:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:37:03 UTC