On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 6:00 PM, Brendan Eich <brendan at mozilla.com> wrote:
> Mark S. Miller wrote:
>>
>>
>>     Cool.  That means we get a decent naming precedent for the monad ops,
>>     and consistency with Array.of (which also happens to be a monadic
>>     lifter, if you limit yourself to calling it with only a single
>>     argument).
>>
>>
>> I agree that this naming analogy is a good thing. I raise my approval
>> magnitude to +1 ;).
>
>
> Bart: Are we there yet?
> Homer: Just a little further...
> Bart: Are we there yet?
> Homer: Just a little further...
> etc.
>
> Can someone summarize for those of us who accidentally skipped a bunch of
> unread messages here? It sounds good from the last post ;-).

Yup!

1. Keep Promise.resolve() as it currently works (but make sure that it
merely adopts promises passed to it, rather than deep-flattens).
2. Rename Promise.accept() to Promise.of() (for consistency with
Array.of, and to provide a better naming base for monads in the
future).
3. Kill PromiseResolver#accept().
4. Make Promise() called without new analogous to String/etc - passing
it a promise returns the argument unchanged, passing it anything else
wraps it in a fresh promise.

~TJ

On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 6:00 PM, Brendan Eich <brendan at mozilla.com> wrote:

> Can someone summarize for those of us who accidentally skipped a bunch of
> unread messages here? It sounds good from the last post ;-).

Yup!

1. Keep Promise.resolve() as it currently works (but make sure that it
merely adopts promises passed to it, rather than deep-flattens).
2. Rename Promise.accept() to Promise.of() (for consistency with
Array.of, and to provide a better naming base for monads in the
future).
3. Kill PromiseResolver#accept().
4. Make Promise() called without new analogous to String/etc - passing
it a promise returns the argument unchanged, passing it anything else
wraps it in a fresh promise.

~TJ