On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 9:09 AM, Anne van Kesteren <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
Sorry, I was waiting until Mark and Domenic had finished up their terminology discussion before I did a third rewrite. > 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. Let's not reopen this, please. The way I've outlined things means that then()-based stuff works compatibly with the existing spec, so that's not a concern. We've already had long threads about why nested promises are useful (namely, that "promise" in practice isn't a single type - you have multiple types of promises from different promise sources, and don't always want to smash them together). ~TJ _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
