I'm not convinced of the need. Promises are already sufficient, and in general use, I rarely use the constructor outside of adapting callback-related code or other lower-level cases.
Also, keep in mind, most such promise-returning functions do have arguments, which this proposal seems to miss. On Mon, Nov 6, 2017, 10:23 Jorge Téllez <[email protected]> wrote: > I would like to propose a new syntax for promises for the next ECMAScript. > > It is common to define promises in the following way: > > function promiseFunction() { > return new Promise(resolve, reject) { > resolve(someValue); > }; > } > > In the previous example, I am declaring a function so that I can access > the promise throughout. > > I would like propose a simpler syntax to remove this redundancy: > > promise promiseFunction(resolve, reject) { > resolve(someValue); > } > > This will make the promise declaration easier to read in a similar fashion > as the new class syntax made it easier to declare prototypes. > > __ > Jorge Téllez > +52 1 81 2567 8257 > @novohispano <http://twitter.com/novohispano> > > _______________________________________________ > 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
