On 12/20/2013 02:02 PM, Andreas Rossberg wrote:
On 19 December 2013 23:29, Alex Russell slightly...@google.com wrote:
Right, but number of objects you have to guard with anti-branding is
much,
much larger. That argues against thenables pretty strongly, but again, I
don't think we need to
On 12/20/2013 04:38 PM, Kevin Smith wrote:
I highly doubt that will be possible -- experience strongly
suggests that every odd feature _will_ be relied on in the wild by
that time. If we think thenable assimilation is a problem then we
have to remove it now. I, for one, would
On 12/20/2013 05:13 PM, Kevin Smith wrote:
Presumably certain promise libraries would try reset the global
Promise to AssimilatingPromise (or whatever) for full parity with
polyfilled environments, which would be fine.
If you're using modules, you wouldn't need to mess with the
On Thu 19 Dec 2013 07:42:31 AM CET, Andrea Giammarchi wrote:
The only thing that does is having *one*, *standard* contract -- and we are
past due on that.
Perhaps the right path would be to try and discuss this for
Promises/A++, and maybe if it happens there, ES7 afterwards :)
Devs also
On Thu 19 Dec 2013 06:24:50 PM CET, Mark S. Miller wrote:
I think this anti-branding idea is worth considering, but using a
symbol or weakmap for the anti-branding rather than a magic
double-underbar property name. Unlike prior positive thenable branding
proposals, this one doesn't break
On 12/19/2013 02:56 AM, Alex Russell wrote:
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 3:32 PM, Ѓорѓи Ќосев gorgi.ko...@gmail.com
mailto:gorgi.ko...@gmail.com wrote:
I understand that adding branding to promises is impossible at this
point, as it would break backward compatibility with all existing
On 11/15/2013 06:18 PM, Claude Pache wrote:
Le 15 nov. 2013 à 17:59, Rick Waldron waldron.r...@gmail.com
mailto:waldron.r...@gmail.com a écrit :
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 11:34 AM, Axel Rauschmayer a...@rauschma.de
mailto:a...@rauschma.de wrote:
(...)
That would make the async
On Thu 14 Nov 2013 11:16:22 PM CET, Brendan Eich wrote:
Claus Reinke wrote:
What I don't understand is why generator expressions are not used
as the only way to create generators, leaving 'function' alone.
We have been over this before: to support flows that for-of loops
cannot expression,
On 11/15/2013 06:07 PM, Kevin Smith wrote:
Besides, with async functions, the use case established in this thread
for generator arrows basically disappears. It's probably better not
to introduce convenience features that will be made obsolete by the
next version of the language.
Can someone
9 matches
Mail list logo
