On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 12:48 PM, Mark S. Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 9:28 AM, Rick Waldron <[email protected]>wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 11:25 AM, Domenic Denicola < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Why go purposefully against the existing terminology of the JavaScript >>> ecosystem? Just say “deferred” where you have “promise” and “promise” where >>> you have “future” and you avoid needless confusion and conflict. >>> >> >> It's true that the terminology exists in JS, but it's been identified >> that these terms may have been misappropriated. >> > > "misappropriated"? What do you mean? > I was referring to the varied use of terminology illustrated in Kevin's spreadsheet: https://docs.google.com/document/d/10OeEwqEuEPyDVRU9VXemxi3kc7ba_pugxHLD2BSrG_k/edit > > > >> Kevin's proposal is easier to reason about: >> >> "Promise to deliver a value in the Future" >> > > This would make "promise" a verb, which is clearly its dominant nat-lang > use. However, I don't see how that justifies using it as the name for the > Deferred abstraction. "in the Future" uses future to name the time when the > value will be delivered. I don't see how this suggests anything appropriate > either. > > For "Promise" as a noun, if I have a promise from you, I do not have the > ability to resolve the promise -- that ability is your's. So the ability of > resolve the promise is clearly distinct from having the promise. > Originally I had worded the phrase something like "Make a Promise..."; regardless, this perspective clearly (and correctly) illustrates the intention. Rick > > -- > Cheers, > --MarkM >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
