Glen, sorry if this has been covered in other discussions, but it's not clear to me so I wanted to ask. Are there some example use-cases where being able to `.ignore` is preferable to having the promise reject? Promise chains are about defining flows of data and I can't really see a case where you'd want to disconnect a promise handler without informing promises farther down the chain, like your `.then(log)` in your example. To me anyway, the proposed `.ignore` seems like it adds boat-loads of complexity with unclear goals.
Also to your question about adding multiple handlers, if that handler has side-effects, then it would definitely cause bugs if the same promise were returned for multiple calls to `.then` with the same callback. On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 5:32 PM, Glen Huang <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Aug 4, 2015, at 1:32 PM, Andrea Giammarchi <[email protected]> > wrote: > > only promises that has passed through their initialization the callback > would be cancelable,and this could be reflected through a `.cancelable` > property > > > That's precisely the problem. When you made a mistake and thought a > function should have the ability to abort, you wouldn't reflect > that `.cancelable` property, you would simply call abort(). Passing a > different object makes this less likely to happen since it's not thenable. > > > and pragmatists would never find out what should be the behavior once > aborted 'cause Promise can only reject and never be ignored. > > > What do you think of the ignore() method I proposed? > > _______________________________________________ > 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
