On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 5:07 PM, Anne van Kesteren <[email protected]> wrote: > I basically took Tab's email and rewrote the terminology. I omitted > the issues for brevity. Hopefully this helps.
Having done that. I wonder if we could leave the monad part out for now. As Mark pointed out in the other thread it causes a bunch of headaches to get that correct, and since we already decided (I believe) to not break with existing practice we could ship the subset that is that and figure out the superset-promise-that-works-for-monads later. That might also give us some insight into how many people will want to wrap promises to make the monad-suitable. -- http://annevankesteren.nl/ _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
