On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 6:00 PM, Brendan Eich <[email protected]> wrote: > Mark S. Miller wrote: >> >> >> Cool. That means we get a decent naming precedent for the monad ops, >> and consistency with Array.of (which also happens to be a monadic >> lifter, if you limit yourself to calling it with only a single >> argument). >> >> >> I agree that this naming analogy is a good thing. I raise my approval >> magnitude to +1 ;). > > > Bart: Are we there yet? > Homer: Just a little further... > Bart: Are we there yet? > Homer: Just a little further... > etc. > > Can someone summarize for those of us who accidentally skipped a bunch of > unread messages here? It sounds good from the last post ;-).
Yup! 1. Keep Promise.resolve() as it currently works (but make sure that it merely adopts promises passed to it, rather than deep-flattens). 2. Rename Promise.accept() to Promise.of() (for consistency with Array.of, and to provide a better naming base for monads in the future). 3. Kill PromiseResolver#accept(). 4. Make Promise() called without new analogous to String/etc - passing it a promise returns the argument unchanged, passing it anything else wraps it in a fresh promise. ~TJ _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
