> > Wanting something value-ish, featureless, monadic, is a good goal for a > differently named abstraction built on value objects. Promises are not that > abstraction. Do the work to show the win, under a new name (Future?).
I believe the win has already been shown, though: "Futures" would of course give you the same thing Promises do while supporting those additional use cases where you don't want recursive unwrapping. My concern is settling on a shortsighted implementation that artificially limits use cases. #2: combinators such as .all do not use .chain, they use .then > Is this such a big deal? If you have .chain then you have .then, so you can certainly "have it all". Imagine we simplified to do just .chain and .cast, and combinators called > .chain. We'd be breaking compatibility with extant promises libraries > IMO, leave .all and the rest of the combinators as they are using .then. I would not mind so long as .chain is intact. --Mark On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 7:48 PM, Brendan Eich <[email protected]> wrote: > Brendan Eich <mailto:[email protected]> >> February 4, 2014 at 7:46 PM >> >> >> >> Then you get a *plonk*, or at least a demeric, >> > > "demerit', of course. > > But I'm talking to a fake address. That's pretty bad, it makes me want to > ignore you (*plonk* in USENET terms). Do better quickly, or else that's the > right outcome. > > > /be > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
