> > > However, this question actually triggered me to have a closer look at > the state of the spec (again), the outcome of which was my proposal > for a refactoring. That refactoring based .then on .chain and pulled > it from any of the core logic, thus avoiding the problems you seem to > be alluding to, while still allowing subclassing. >
For reference (since it was mentioned), my counter-proposal is here: goo.gl/3XzX9R and is basically just a minimization of Andreas's work. The only substantial difference is that `Promise.defer` is used as the subclass "create a default tuple" contract. (And less substantially, nominal type-testing is performed using a built-in symbol, rather than using internal slots.) > I agree that this is a general issue moving forward. We actually had > several occasions where consensus flipped forth and back between > meetings, which is a problem, especially when implementers want to > move ahead with features. > If I may interject some opinions on process... I'm not sure how this fits in with the new post-ES6 process, but from this one outsider's point of view: - A formal set of design goals should be completed and agreed upon before design work is begun. The design goals form the basis of measurement and the champion(s) must be bound to them at all times. Any changes to the design goal document must be carefully reviewed in order to prevent churn. A detailed change-log is an obvious requirement. - A *working* implementation should be created and solutions to real-world use cases should be programmed using the design before any spec language is authored. Spec-language is a poor medium for communicating both design intent and programming intent. On a side note: it seems to me the the existence of the design champion, who by definition is deeply invested in the design process, implies the existence of its dual: the anti-champion, who is detached from the details of the design work and provides a vital holistic perspective. In a hierarchical organization this role would be taken on by the chief architect, I suppose, but in a committee you don't have one of those. : ) I feel that I have stepped into this role on occasion, much to the chagrin of various champions (apologies to Sam, Dave, and Domenic for any and all heat - nothing personal of course).
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
