domenic at domenicdenicola.com (2014-02-04T16:09:51.993Z)
This accidentally ended up not being forwarded to the list --- Forbes Lindesay: It seems that the use case of `Promise.resolve` is to allow you to create a Promise for a Promise. It seems to me that we should wait until it observable before we define a method for creating it. I feel like we’re going about things backwards at the moment. We can commit to discussing Promises for Promises later, but if we add this now it's as if we're committing to actually having Promises for Promises. I'm definitely in favour of removing `Promise.resolve`. Mark S. Miller: That has always been my preference as well. But given the current stage things are in, is it worth fighting to remove it? If you feel it is, please repost your objection to es-discuss or promises-unwrapping.
forbes at lindesay.co.uk (2014-01-28T20:25:23.339Z)
Forbes Lindesay: It seems that the use case of `Promise.resolve` is to allow you to create a Promise for a Promise. It seems to me that we should wait until it observable before we define a method for creating it. I feel like we’re going about things backwards at the moment. We can commit to discussing Promises for Promises later, but if we add this now it's as if we're committing to actually having Promises for Promises. I'm definitely in favour of removing `Promise.resolve`. Mark S. Miller: That has always been my preference as well. But given the current stage things are in, is it worth fighting to remove it? If you feel it is, please repost your objection to es-discuss or promises-unwrapping.
This accidentally ended up not being forwarded to the list From: Mark S. Miller [mailto:erights at google.com] Sent: 28 January 2014 19:52 To: Forbes Lindesay Subject: Re: Promise.cast and Promise.resolve That has always been my preference as well. But given the current stage things are in, is it worth fighting to remove it? If you feel it is, please repost your objection to es-discuss or promises-unwrapping. On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Forbes Lindesay <forbes at lindesay.co.uk<mailto:forbes at lindesay.co.uk>> wrote: It seems that the use case of `Promise.resolve` is to allow you to create a Promise for a Promise. It seems to me that we should wait until it observable before we define a method for creating it. I feel like we’re going about things backwards at the moment. We can commit to discussing Promises for Promises later, but if we add this now it's as if we're committing to actually having Promises for Promises. I'm definitely in favour of removing `Promise.resolve`. -- Cheers, --MarkM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20140128/28c58879/attachment.html>