Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
In the meeting, there were (a) people advocating for styles of
programming along the lines that you (Tab) have put forward, like me,
(b) people advocating for Q-style programming, like Mark, Yehuda, and
Tom, and (c) genuine concern about the complexity budget of the
promise API, expressed most by Luke Hoban, but felt by all of us. Were
it not for this last concern, I think AP2 would have seemed more
attractive. But since the set of methods available on Promises
themselves is the most visible part of the API, and AP2 doubles its
size, that told heavily against AP2.
AP2 from Mark's slides:
AP2 (Based on Tab’s latest)
• Q.fulfill // lifting
• Q() // autolifting, resolve
• p.then // deep flattening
• p.flatMap // “chain”
AP3, next slide:
AP3
• Q.fulfill // lifting
• Q() // autolifting, resolve
• p.then // deep flattening of returned value
There's no doubling, just 4 methods instead of 3. If we can't do what
you preferred, lose the recursive unwrapping, then either users hack
{value: x} workarounds and sometimes end up with bugs where such
wrappers were not manually unwrapped -- or we add chain. I'm with Tab on
this.
/be
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
