On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 6:57 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 10:19 PM, Domenic Denicola
> wrote:
> > It also adds a fulfill method. Thus, it presents two interfaces to the
> user: fulfill + chain (aka unit + bind), and Q + then (aka resolve + then).
> This seems to squarely fa
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:07 AM, David Bruant wrote:
> David Bruant wrote:
>> Le 21/05/2013 04:06, Tab Atkins Jr. a écrit :
>> > (One way to do this today is to subclass Map and provide my own
>> > get/set/etc. functions, but I need to override a potentially-open set
>> > (anything that doesn't di
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 10:19 PM, Domenic Denicola
wrote:
> It also adds a fulfill method. Thus, it presents two interfaces to the user:
> fulfill + chain (aka unit + bind), and Q + then (aka resolve + then). This
> seems to squarely fall into the trap Mark described in his original post, viz.
>
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 9:31 PM, Domenic Denicola
wrote:
> From: Tab Atkins Jr. [mailto:jackalm...@gmail.com]
>> Thoughts?
>
> Sounds like a great user-space library!!
You... you can't. You can't build .chain() on top of .then() in a way
that actually interoperates. You'll just get two differen
I think I would rather not make the case of doing a bunch of fancy stuff in
the RHS of extends so that hopefully in the future we can "extend" the
class syntax to support some sort of propper mixin or trait scenario.
At first I thought maybe something like: class D extends A, B, C { } but
this wo
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 6:19 AM, Domenic Denicola
wrote:
> The point of my post was to demonstrate that fulfill/chain aka unit/bind
> could be built in user space *extremely simply*, thus allowing "the nascent
> monadic efforts in JS" to go off and do their own thing for a few years
> before as
6 matches
Mail list logo
