Pontus ??stlund wrote: >> 22 maj 2016 kl. 16:40 skrev Marcus Agehall (nu med K-m??rkt fastighet och ny >> elcentral) @ Pike (-) developers forum <10...@lyskom.lysator.liu.se>: >> A bigger problem imho is the difference in how promises are actually >> resolved. In JavaScript, the return value of then() is always a *new* >> promise which then allows for chaining. In Pike, we return the same >> promise object. This means that code like
>> my_promise->on_success(foo)->on_success(bar) >> in Pike would result only in a call to bar() once my_promise is >> resolved whereas in JavaScript, foo() would be called and it's return >> value would be the input to bar in a new promise. >I agree that a new promise (or future rather) should be returned. You can >blame me since on_success/on_failure were void functions originally so I added >the return stuff so you could chain an on_failure onto an on_success. But you >are correct, that should probably be a new future, and if >on_success/on_failure returns a future that???s the one to be resolved in the >next chained on_success/on_failure. It seems that this has not been fixed yet. I'm trying to build a SOAP interface using Promises. It is messy at best. Do we agree that this needs to be fixed? Any objections if I try to fix it? -- Stephen.
