On 24 April 2013 19:20, Mark S. Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 10:14 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <[email protected]> > wrote: >> Q and similar libraries don't actually assume that a Future<Future<x>> >> is a Future<x>. > > Yes it does. Except of course that we call these "promises". Please see the > extensive discussions on the Promises/A+ site about why this flattening > behavior is important.
That strikes me as a very odd design decision, since it would seem to violate all sorts of structural and equational invariants. Mark, could you summarize the rationale for this, or provide a more specific link to the appropriate bit of the discussion you are referring to? /Andreas _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
