> > Is there a reason to use a Promise as the cancellation token, rather than > have something that is synchronously inspectable? >
The only real downside of coming up with a new interface is that we have to standardize it. : ) It's a core protocol. I agree that using a promise directly would feel awkward without a helper library. You'd probably also want a method that would throw an error if the cancel token was activated (as in .NET https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.threading.cancellationtoken.throwifcancellationrequested(v=vs.110).aspx ): cancelToken.throwIfCanceled(); Instead of the more verbose: if (cancelToken.canceled) throw new OperationCancelledError(); I also like the revealing constructor pattern that Domenic mentioned. It's almost good enough, as-is, for converting from a promise to a cancelation token: new CancellationToken(cancel => somePromise.then(cancel)); Nice!
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
