I was speaking objectively about the proposal itself, and the scope of it. I'm personally strongly against it for reasons I stated earlier in the thread (the status quo is better IMHO). I was just trying to direct people back to the actual scope of the proposal instead of basically reinventing async functions using async functions, and also simultaneously attempting to assist the OP in better understanding what he's really trying to propose (which he didn't appear to grasp well).
On Mon, Feb 27, 2017, 14:01 Tab Atkins Jr. <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 12:41 AM, Isiah Meadows <[email protected]> > wrote: > > May I add one more thing: the main topic this was about is adapting > > non-standard async APIs (like Node's error-first callback idiom) to the > land > > of promises. Async functions and iterators are incredibly useful when > you're > > dealing with just promises, especially consuming them, but this is about > > creating promise adapters, not consuming promises. > > You don't need to change the behavior of core syntax to make > Node-style error-first callbacks work. That's easily done by > libraries, which have existed in Node-land for quite a while, and can > automatically convert functions that take Node-style callbacks into > functions that return promises. > > ~TJ >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
