> it was obvious from the example that it's important that `computeResult` isn't called until after the delay
I was just underlying possible side effects. TBH, I don't even know why forcing a delay to an async function would be needed but yeah, definitively on the same page. I am also a bit against underpowered patterns, like a delay(1000) over setTimeout since the latter one can be canceled, a delay(1000) without cancelable Promises is a curse, IMO ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Regards On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 10:06 PM, T.J. Crowder < tj.crow...@farsightsoftware.com> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 8:14 PM, Andrea Giammarchi < > andrea.giammar...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> In the first example, I haven't written this by accident: >> >> > also granting you args are those passed at the invocation time and no >> possible mutation capable of affecting `computeResult` could happen >> later on? >> > > Okay. With respect, that sentence is *really* unclear, esp. given the > context that it was obvious from the example that it's important that > `computeResult` isn't called until after the delay. But we're all on the > same page now. > > -- T.J. Crowder >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
