Edward O'Connor wrote:
Perhaps TC39 should consider adopting a similar policy.
Policy, schmolicy :-P.
(Presumably clocks with deadlines are required; consensus could break
afterwards, in spite of the formal rules.)
Let's let our hair down a bit and get real here. We did not "declare
consensus" Thursday last week, in any formal or informal fashion. We
knew Andreas wasn't there. We heard his position articulated by Sam (who
dialed in). We knew most of what we now know.
At this point we must forge async consensus. Is Andreas and anyone else
(I'm not singling him out; I sympathize and started on his/Sam's/Kevin's
"side" earlier last week) objecting doing so in a consensus-breaking
way, for sure? We should async-check this.
Often one objects or finds a survivable fault in a consensus position,
and works to persuade others to overcome it. Sometimes this leads to
minimization (and over-minimization) and deferment of troublesome but
important bits (@medikoo on twitter reminds me we dropped .done after
June's big thread -- a semi-consensus deferment, I found from
(re-)reading a bunch of messages).
If we really have broken consensus in the async sense, we will have to
back up to Kevin's fixup of AP2, as Mark suggests. I have no idea how
this will shake out.
I'd rather we keep separate and conflict-prone APIs in separate objects,
though. I'd rather we acknowledge that Promises are a library de-facto
quasi-standard we are trying to codify, not green-field work where we
can start over or "do both".
Is any of this persuasive to anyone? Dunno, you tell me. If DOM only
wanted .then/.resolve, you should join my "realist" camp :-P.
/be
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
