Closed Bug 884754 Opened 6 years ago Closed 6 years ago

Promise.fulfill()

Categories

(Core :: DOM: Core & HTML, defect)

x86_64
Linux
defect
Not set

Tracking

()

RESOLVED INVALID

People

(Reporter: baku, Assigned: baku)

References

(Blocks 3 open bugs)

Details

Attachments

(1 file, 1 obsolete file)

No description provided.
Attached patch patch (obsolete) — Splinter Review
Attachment #764682 - Flags: review?(mounir)
Blocks: 875289
No longer blocks: 875289
Summary: Promise.fufill() → Promise.fulfill()
Do we need that for the moment? Can't we simply keep our implementation as is and wait for a consensus to be formed?
Comment on attachment 764682 [details] [diff] [review]
patch

Clearing review based on comment 2.
Attachment #764682 - Flags: review?(mounir)
Unfortunately according to reports from the latest TC39 meeting `fulfill` is necessary for consensus, i.e. promises will not be acceptable to TC39 without it. In the same spirit as my comments on 879245, it seems important for Firefox not to fork the existing efforts and specs, even if this time it would be in a direction I support.
Comment on attachment 764682 [details] [diff] [review]
patch

Asking for a review based on comment 4.
Attachment #764682 - Flags: review?(mounir)
(In reply to Domenic Denicola from comment #4)
> Unfortunately according to reports from the latest TC39 meeting `fulfill` is
> necessary for consensus, i.e. promises will not be acceptable to TC39
> without it. In the same spirit as my comments on 879245, it seems important
> for Firefox not to fork the existing efforts and specs, even if this time it
> would be in a direction I support.

As said on bug 879245, we are not going to fork anything, our implementation is simply going to be an experiment behind a flag as long as people are fighting in three different mailing list and one GH repository to know what should be standardized...

Do you have a link to discussions regarding fulfill in TC39? (Other places clearly didn't reach a consensus on that topic but I'm not reading es-discuss.)
Blocks: 885333
Comment on attachment 764682 [details] [diff] [review]
patch

Given that we only need this if we have thenable support that Jonas and I believe is not needed for the moment, I will cancel the review again.
Attachment #764682 - Flags: review?(mounir)
Attached patch patchSplinter Review
rebased
Attachment #764682 - Attachment is obsolete: true
This is not coming back as such.
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 6 years ago
Resolution: --- → INVALID
Component: DOM → DOM: Core & HTML
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.