On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 6:26 PM, David Bruant <bruant.d at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> The question of thenables came back on Mozilla's Bugzilla [1] (see comment
> 29 & 30) with a decent share of skepticism that I share too.
>
> I'm sorry I didn't go through all the promises discussions, but what's the
> rationale of supporting thenables? I fear this feature won't be necessary 2
> or 3 years after native promises ship. For sure, it's of no use to those
> who only use native promises.
>
> I read from the meeting notes that it was pretty much the only point of
> debate and a long one.
>

There was no long debate about thenables, only two requests for
clarification of their meaning and one request for explanation of their
backing store mechanism, all with immediate responses. The notes reflect
exactly that.

I can't speak for Anne, with regard to comment#30, but I don't recall him
sharing any kind of skepticism during the conversation. Hopefully he will
clarify for us.

Rick
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20131010/18ba2728/attachment.html>

There was no long debate about thenables, only two requests for
clarification of their meaning and one request for explanation of their
backing store mechanism, all with immediate responses. The notes reflect
exactly that.

I can't speak for Anne, with regard to comment#30, but I don't recall him
sharing any kind of skepticism during the conversation. Hopefully he will
clarify for us.