Thenable assimilation is already used in the wild to a degree that we can't break. I agree with Alex that we should not re-litigate this. It is only anti-branding that could be added later -- and only if there's evidence of a need great enough to justify the added complexity. In the absence of that evidence, let's just stick to the consensus we've already achieved.
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 5:02 AM, Andreas Rossberg <[email protected]>wrote: > On 19 December 2013 23:29, Alex Russell <[email protected]> wrote: > > Right, but number of objects you have to guard with anti-branding is > much, > > much larger. That argues against thenables pretty strongly, but again, I > > don't think we need to change anything for ES6. We can repair this in > ES7 if > > it's a problem in practice. > > I highly doubt that will be possible -- experience strongly suggests > that every odd feature _will_ be relied on in the wild by that time. > If we think thenable assimilation is a problem then we have to remove > it now. I, for one, would welcome that. We could still provide an > _explicit_ thenable adaptor method in the Promise API. > > /Andreas > _______________________________________________ > 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
