And what's the deal, is it canceled or cancelled? : )
On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 11:30 AM Kevin Smith <zenpars...@gmail.com> wrote: > Is there a reason to use a Promise as the cancellation token, rather than >> have something that is synchronously inspectable? >> > > The only real downside of coming up with a new interface is that we have > to standardize it. : ) It's a core protocol. > > I agree that using a promise directly would feel awkward without a helper > library. You'd probably also want a method that would throw an error if > the cancel token was activated (as in .NET > https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.threading.cancellationtoken.throwifcancellationrequested(v=vs.110).aspx > ): > > cancelToken.throwIfCanceled(); > > Instead of the more verbose: > > if (cancelToken.canceled) > throw new OperationCancelledError(); > > I also like the revealing constructor pattern that Domenic mentioned. > It's almost good enough, as-is, for converting from a promise to a > cancelation token: > > new CancellationToken(cancel => somePromise.then(cancel)); > > Nice! >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
