It also adds a fulfill method. Thus, it presents two interfaces to the user: fulfill + chain (aka unit + bind), and Q + then (aka resolve + then). This seems to squarely fall into the trap Mark described in his original post, viz.
> The main failure mode of standards bodies is to resolve a conflict by adding > the union of the advocated features. And indeed, I think the subsequent sentences ring just as true: > Here, this works even worse than it usually does. The coherence of lifting > depends on the absence of autolifting, and vice versa. We need to make a > choice. The point of my post was to demonstrate that fulfill/chain aka unit/bind could be built in user space *extremely simply*, thus allowing "the nascent monadic efforts in JS" to go off and do their own thing for a few years before asking to be baked into the platform. Promises, in the Q-plus-then-sense, have paid their dues. It's not very sporting for the monadic efforts to hijack the promise-standardization train, without first doing similar due diligence via real-world implementations and experience. _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
