Re: Promises: final steps
Aymeric Vitte <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.lang.javascript.ecmascript4.general,gmane.comp.web.dom.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
I have not read everything about the promise/future/re-promise subject but what I have read seems to show that everyone has a personal understanding of the thing. So please see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcrypto/2013Sep/0003.html , code example that I have written for WebCrypto (ie real working case not using WebCrypto rewritten with WebCrypto promises), as explained I am using 'done' despite of the fact that it might be removed, because I don't see why I should use 'then' if I am not chaining anything. As explained again, the example shows maybe that promises here are a kind of artifice, until other APIs implement promises. How should I write this without 'done'? Regards Aymeric Le 08/09/2013 19:06, Anne van Kesteren a écrit : > (Added back the other lists.) > > On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 3:58 AM, Brendan Eich <brendan-b/[email protected]> wrote: >> Let's put done back in. It's the right thing. > Given what has been said thus far > https://github.com/domenic/promises-unwrapping/issues/19 my > inclination is still to leave it out initially and give a version > without done() six months to a year to mature. Not having done() can > make promises harder to debug in the short term, but adding done() is > trivial to do later. And given the lack of native promise > implementations to date there's no way for us to test the done()-less > design without trying it first. > > -- jCore Email : [email protected] Peersm : http://www.peersm.com iAnonym : http://www.ianonym.com node-Tor : https://www.github.com/Ayms/node-Tor GitHub : https://www.github.com/Ayms Web : www.jcore.fr Extract Widget Mobile : www.extractwidget.com BlimpMe! : www.blimpme.com