On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 9:31 PM, Domenic Denicola
<domenic at domenicdenicola.com> wrote:
> From: Tab Atkins Jr. [mailto:jackalmage at gmail.com]
>> Thoughts?
>
> Sounds like a great user-space library!!

You... you can't.  You can't build .chain() on top of .then() in a way
that actually interoperates.  You'll just get two different types of
promises which can't talk to each other.

You can do the opposite, interestingly, because .chain() doesn't lose
data, so a .then() method can be defined by the author to just do the
necessary chaining for you until it ends up with a plain value.

~TJ

On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 9:31 PM, Domenic Denicola <domenic at domenicdenicola.com> wrote:
> From: Tab Atkins Jr. [mailto:jackalmage at gmail.com]
>> Thoughts?
>
> Sounds like a great user-space library!!

You... you can't.  You can't build .chain() on top of .then() in a way
that actually interoperates.  You'll just get two different types of
promises which can't talk to each other.

You can do the opposite, interestingly, because .chain() doesn't lose
data, so a .then() method can be defined by the author to just do the
necessary chaining for you until it ends up with a plain value.