I think this anti-branding idea is worth considering, but using a symbol or weakmap for the anti-branding rather than a magic double-underbar property name. Unlike prior positive thenable branding proposals, this one doesn't break existing code but still provides systems that use "then" in contrary ways an ability to cope. It also doesn't break anything premised on the promise-unwrapping consensus that we've agreed on and specced. I see only two questions:
* Whether the benefit is worth the additional complexity? * If we do decide to do this, does it make sense to postpone it to ES7? Unless there is significant demonstrated need, I am leaning away from the paying the additional complexity. OTOH, since this would mainly be about mitigating the pain of fixing contrary uses of "then", if we're going to do it at all, we should do it in ES6. If we don't, then these contrary uses of "then" will probably already be fixed by the time ES7 rolls out. On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 9:03 AM, Ѓорѓи Ќосев <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu 19 Dec 2013 07:42:31 AM CET, Andrea Giammarchi wrote: > > > The only thing that does is having *one*, *standard* contract -- and we > are past due on that. > > Perhaps the right path would be to try and discuss this for > Promises/A++, and maybe if it happens there, ES7 afterwards :) > > > Devs also complain about mistakes though .. not sure how to win here :-( > > No worries. I think I understand now. Still I felt it was worth a shot, > although I guess I picked the wrong path (and time) to go about it. > > Thanks for your time -- and sorry for creating a stir. > > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > -- Cheers, --MarkM
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
