>From the example provided, as someone who uses promises a lot, I’m not sure I’m sold on the need for this either. Maybe you could provide some more concrete examples, Jorge?
P.S. Proposals like this are why JavaScript should’ve been a LISP ;p … On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 10:28 AM, Isiah Meadows <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 <+52%201%2081%202567%208257> >> @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 > > -- - Jonathan — Life is a game and we’re all just high density pixels.
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
