I found it [a fun exercise](https://gist.github.com/domenic/5632079) to show
how little code it takes to build unabashed monadic promises on top of Q-like
promises. (It's been a while since I exercised those brain-muscles, so any
corrections appreciated.) The punch line is
```js
function unit(x) {
return Q({ x });
}
function bind(m, f) {
return m.then({ x } => f(x));
}
```
My interpretation of this exercise---apart from the fact that I miss doing
mathematical proofs---is that, since it's so little code to implement unabashed
monadic promises on top of Q-like promises, and Q-like promises have proven
their worth in JavaScript whereas unabashed monadic promises have not, it makes
much more sense to standardize on Q-like promises as the base, and leave
unabashed monadic promises to user-space libraries.
(Abashed monadic promises are, of course, a failure mode of
standardization---as Mark points out---and not really worth considering.)
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
