On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 1:30 PM, Brendan Eich <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
This is twice as many methods on promises themselves: `then` vs `then` and `chain`. Many more people will consume the promise datatype than produce it, which mean that this does double the methods that consumers need to know about. Sam _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
