Given your example of
```
let done = query.done;
done.then(updateView).then(log, logAbort);
done.ignore(updateView);
```
The core of my complaint comes down to control flow. To demonstrate, let's
convert this to a co generator so it's readable like sync code.
```
co(function*(){
try {
let
2015-07-27 5:42 GMT+02:00 Dean Landolt d...@deanlandolt.com:
On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 8:07 AM, Benjamin Gruenbaum benjami...@gmail.com
wrote:
Out of curiosity, can you give an example of the Not Good parts? ISTM
the await prefix is more of an explicit cast than an implicit conversation,
Wait...this got me thinking... The proposal itself doesn't bring along a
lot of merits, but it seems like it could be a great stepping stone to a
limited pattern matching syntax. This would probably be a little more
justifiable IMHO than merely a custom destructuring syntax. Maybe something
like
Damnit...forgot to fix the subject.
On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 3:20 AM, Isiah Meadows impinb...@gmail.com wrote:
Wait...this got me thinking... The proposal itself doesn't bring along a
lot of merits, but it seems like it could be a great stepping stone to a
limited pattern matching syntax. This
On 5 August 2015 at 09:27, Isiah Meadows impinb...@gmail.com wrote:
Damnit...forgot to fix the subject.
On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 3:20 AM, Isiah Meadows impinb...@gmail.com wrote:
Wait...this got me thinking... The proposal itself doesn't bring along a
lot of merits, but it seems like it could
On Wed, Aug 5, 2015, 04:29 Isiah Meadows impinb...@gmail.com wrote:
Good point. I did make most of the natives identity functions returning
the object itself for most cases with the prolyfill, which engines should
easily detect at run time and inline into nothingness. But I do see your
point.
Promises may reasonably resolve with `undefined` so I don't see good reason
to special-case it.
I remain of the opinion that this is a simple type issue. You can't just
take a function returning number and change it to return array-of-number
and expect things to work, without refactoring the call
(Slides are at https://github.com/tc39/tc39-notes/tree/master/es7/2015-07 )
# July 28 2015 Meeting Notes
Allen Wirfs-Brock (AWB), Sebastian Markbage (SM), Jafar Husain (JH), Eric
Farriauolo (EF), Caridy Patino (CP), Waldemar Horwat (WH), István Sebestyén
(IS), Mark Miller (MM), Adam Klein (AK),
(Slides are at https://github.com/tc39/tc39-notes/tree/master/es7/2015-07 )
# July 30 2015 Meeting Notes
Allen Wirfs-Brock (AWB), Sebastian Markbage (SM), Jafar Husain (JH), Eric
Farriauolo (EF), Caridy Patino (CP), Waldemar Horwat (WH), Istvan Sebastian
(IS), Mark Miller (MM), Adam Klein (AK),
(Slides are at https://github.com/tc39/tc39-notes/tree/master/es7/2015-07 )
# July 29 2015 Meeting Notes
Allen Wirfs-Brock (AWB), Sebastian Markbage (SM), Jafar Husain (JH), Eric
Farriauolo (EF), Caridy Patino (CP), Waldemar Horwat (WH), Istvan Sebastian
(IS), Mark Miller (MM), Adam Klein (AK),
Thank you for your reply Andreas!
So, let's split this discussion into two parts:
i) Whether there is a good use case for non-standard data structures like
Immutable.js in place of standard Objects.
ii) If so, how to proceed with simplifying destructuring for these data
structures.
Let's
like I've said ...
On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 1:32 AM, Glen Huang curvedm...@gmail.com wrote:
What do you think of the ignore() method I proposed?
... I don't want to express myself further.
I think this story should be split in few little stories. The first one
would be asking around how many
What you are asking for seems like a way to halt execution of the function,
without ever returning from the function, or executing either branch of the
try/catch
This also happens when query.done never resolves / rejects. You don't need to
introduce ignore() to trigger this behavior.
I
13 matches
Mail list logo
