Spinning off a new thread...
From: es-discuss [mailto:es-discuss-bounces at mozilla.org] On Behalf Of Mark S. Miller Subject: RE: "use strict" VS setTimeout
Let's just be sure that we avoid this mistake when promises grow something like Q's Q.delay. Promise.delay? Promise.prototype.delay?
IMO this should be a utility function that uses promises, not a feature of promises/promise classes themselves. So it would be e.g. global.delay or import delay from "js/flow" or something. I think in general promise utility functions are a slippery slope and I'd feel more comfortable sliding down that slope if we kept them in a module instead of grafting them onto the class itself. I'd rather reserve that for things that are core to the promise experience, either control-flow wise (Promise.prototype.finally, perhaps Promise.any) or for pipelining (.get, .call, etc.).
BTW I definitely agree that promise-returning delay(ms) as a better setTimeout should be part of the standard library.
(I also find the name sleep somewhat attractive, as a re-appropriation from threaded contexts. await sleep(1000), heh.)
Spinning off a new thread... From: es-discuss [mailto:es-discuss-bounces at mozilla.org] On Behalf Of Mark S. Miller Subject: RE: "use strict" VS setTimeout > Let's just be sure that we avoid this mistake when promises grow something like Q's Q.delay. Promise.delay? Promise.prototype.delay? IMO this should be a utility function that uses promises, not a feature of promises/promise classes themselves. So it would be e.g. `global.delay` or `import delay from "js/flow"` or something. I think in general promise utility functions are a slippery slope and I'd feel more comfortable sliding down that slope if we kept them in a module instead of grafting them onto the class itself. I'd rather reserve that for things that are core to the promise experience, either control-flow wise (`Promise.prototype.finally`, perhaps `Promise.any`) or for pipelining (`.get`, `.call`, etc.). BTW I definitely agree that promise-returning `delay(ms)` as a better `setTimeout` should be part of the standard library. (I also find the name `sleep` somewhat attractive, as a re-appropriation from threaded contexts. `await sleep(1000)`, heh.)
On 9 Sep 2014 00:13, "Domenic Denicola" <domenic at domenicdenicola.com> wrote:
(I also find the name
sleepsomewhat attractive, as a re-appropriation
from threaded contexts. await sleep(1000), heh.)
Sleep has blocking semantics in all languages I've used it in (eg. C, Java, Ruby, Bash, etc) so perhaps best avoid any confusion?
I've found delay very useful and natural in the context of Rx.Observables, where it is a method to delay each element in a stream, although that's a slightly different use case to what's proposed here.
What's the recommended way to add capabilities to Promises? Utility functions, as suggested here? Promise subclassing/"casting"? Prototype monkey patching (I guess not, but some will do that if there's no better way...)?
Reminds me from the elegant/surprising obj::func() binding syntax Domenic showed the other day in a presentation, too.
On 9 Sep 2014 00:13, "Domenic Denicola" <domenic at domenicdenicola.com> wrote: > (I also find the name `sleep` somewhat attractive, as a re-appropriation from threaded contexts. `await sleep(1000)`, heh.) Sleep has blocking semantics in all languages I've used it in (eg. C, Java, Ruby, Bash, etc) so perhaps best avoid any confusion? I've found `delay` very useful and natural in the context of Rx.Observables, where it is a method to delay each element in a stream, although that's a slightly different use case to what's proposed here. What's the recommended way to add capabilities to Promises? Utility functions, as suggested here? Promise subclassing/"casting"? Prototype monkey patching (I guess not, but some will do that if there's no better way...)? Reminds me from the elegant/surprising obj::func() binding syntax Domenic showed the other day in a presentation, too. -- ------------------------------ Visit theguardian.com. On your mobile and tablet, download the Guardian iPhone and Android apps theguardian.com/guardianapp and our tablet editions theguardian.com/editions. Save up to 57% by subscribing to the Guardian and Observer - choose the papers you want and get full digital access. Visit subscribe.theguardian.com This e-mail and all attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the named recipient, please notify the sender and delete the e-mail and all attachments immediately. Do not disclose the contents to another person. You may not use the information for any purpose, or store, or copy, it in any way. Guardian News & Media Limited is not liable for any computer viruses or other material transmitted with or as part of this e-mail. You should employ virus checking software. Guardian News & Media Limited is a member of Guardian Media Group plc. Registered Office: PO Box 68164, Kings Place, 90 York Way, London, N1P 2AP. Registered in England Number 908396 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20140909/83e90ea7/attachment.html>
The npm prfun package uses both prototypes patching and subclassing, fwiw. And it implements both Promise.delay and Promise.prototype.delay. I'd be interested in feedback after folks use it a bit.
The npm `prfun` package uses both prototypes patching and subclassing, fwiw. And it implements both `Promise.delay` and `Promise.prototype.delay`. I'd be interested in feedback after folks use it a bit. --scott On Sep 9, 2014 4:43 AM, "Sébastien Cevey" <seb.cevey at guardian.co.uk> wrote: > On 9 Sep 2014 00:13, "Domenic Denicola" <domenic at domenicdenicola.com> > wrote: > > > (I also find the name `sleep` somewhat attractive, as a re-appropriation > from threaded contexts. `await sleep(1000)`, heh.) > > Sleep has blocking semantics in all languages I've used it in (eg. C, > Java, Ruby, Bash, etc) so perhaps best avoid any confusion? > > I've found `delay` very useful and natural in the context of > Rx.Observables, where it is a method to delay each element in a stream, > although that's a slightly different use case to what's proposed here. > > What's the recommended way to add capabilities to Promises? Utility > functions, as suggested here? Promise subclassing/"casting"? Prototype > monkey patching (I guess not, but some will do that if there's no better > way...)? > > Reminds me from the elegant/surprising obj::func() binding syntax Domenic > showed the other day in a presentation, too. > > ------------------------------ > Visit theguardian.com. On your mobile and tablet, download the Guardian > iPhone and Android apps theguardian.com/guardianapp and our tablet > editions theguardian.com/editions. Save up to 57% by subscribing to the > Guardian and Observer - choose the papers you want and get full digital > access. Visit subscribe.theguardian.com > > This e-mail and all attachments are confidential and may also be > privileged. If you are not the named recipient, please notify the sender > and delete the e-mail and all attachments immediately. Do not disclose the > contents to another person. You may not use the information for any > purpose, or store, or copy, it in any way. Guardian News & Media Limited > is not liable for any computer viruses or other material transmitted with > or as part of this e-mail. You should employ virus checking software. > > Guardian News & Media Limited is a member of Guardian Media Group plc. Registered > Office: PO Box 68164, Kings Place, 90 York Way, London, N1P 2AP. Registered > in England Number 908396 > > > > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > es-discuss at mozilla.org > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20140909/6fd61e1d/attachment.html>
Domenic Denicola wrote:
BTW I definitely agree that promise-returning
delay(ms)as a bettersetTimeoutshould be part of the standard library.
See twitter.com/garybernhardt/status/526435690524196864 where I'm subtweeted but with some justice. setTimeout began life taking only a program to eval, and given the general implicit-conversion mania afflicting me and others at Netscape, it converts its first argument to string source for that program. Only in Netscape 3 did the funarg-first form come in.
Sorry about that, and you're right -- at some promise-allocation and cognitive load costs, a new API could win. Another option is to have a new functional API, but I bet it won't be easy to name well or get approved.
Domenic Denicola wrote: > BTW I definitely agree that promise-returning `delay(ms)` as a better `setTimeout` should be part of the standard library. See https://twitter.com/garybernhardt/status/526435690524196864 where I'm subtweeted but with some justice. setTimeout began life taking only a program to eval, and given the general implicit-conversion mania afflicting me and others at Netscape, it converts its first argument to string source for that program. Only in Netscape 3 did the funarg-first form come in. Sorry about that, and you're right -- at some promise-allocation and cognitive load costs, a new API could win. Another option is to have a new functional API, but I bet it won't be easy to name well or get approved. /be
Not sure if discussed already but I believe .cancel() or .forgetAboutIt() mechanism should be proposed before introducing any .delay()
Promises often put developers in unmanaged roads where things keep being "forgotten" and/or impossible to drop without ending up in the next chain, undesired, or the error stack, even less desired.
What I mean is that if setTimeout is a desired pattern to replicate through .delay(ms), but I really don't understand why that would be a desired pattern at all, clearTimeout functionality should be considered as well.
A generic .cancel() would be most likely the easier approach but it should be implemented upfront.
Not sure if discussed already but I believe `.cancel()` or `.forgetAboutIt()` mechanism should be proposed before introducing any `.delay()` Promises often put developers in unmanaged roads where things keep being "forgotten" and/or impossible to drop without ending up in the next chain, undesired, or the error stack, even less desired. What I mean is that if `setTimeout` is a desired pattern to replicate through `.delay(ms)`, but I really don't understand why that would be a desired pattern at all, `clearTimeout` functionality should be considered as well. A generic `.cancel()` would be most likely the easier approach but it should be implemented upfront. Regards On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 4:41 AM, Brendan Eich <brendan at mozilla.org> wrote: > Domenic Denicola wrote: > >> BTW I definitely agree that promise-returning `delay(ms)` as a better >> `setTimeout` should be part of the standard library. >> > > See https://twitter.com/garybernhardt/status/526435690524196864 where I'm > subtweeted but with some justice. setTimeout began life taking only a > program to eval, and given the general implicit-conversion mania afflicting > me and others at Netscape, it converts its first argument to string source > for that program. Only in Netscape 3 did the funarg-first form come in. > > Sorry about that, and you're right -- at some promise-allocation and > cognitive load costs, a new API could win. Another option is to have a new > functional API, but I bet it won't be easy to name well or get approved. > > /be > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20141027/b5aa9795/attachment-0001.html>
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 3:21 AM, Andrea Giammarchi <andrea.giammarchi at gmail.com> wrote:
Not sure if discussed already but I believe
.cancel()or.forgetAboutIt()mechanism should be proposed before introducing any.delay()Promises often put developers in unmanaged roads where things keep being "forgotten" and/or impossible to drop without ending up in the next chain, undesired, or the error stack, even less desired.
What I mean is that if
setTimeoutis a desired pattern to replicate through.delay(ms), but I really don't understand why that would be a desired pattern at all,clearTimeoutfunctionality should be considered as well.A generic
.cancel()would be most likely the easier approach but it should be implemented upfront.
Cancelable promises are a completely different beast; it's not just a matter of adding a new method to Promise.prototype, it's changing the data structure pretty fundamentally. Suddenly you have a new value-affecting capability, but it's exposed outside of the constructor. You need to be able to react to a cancellation, so you can actually cancel the work being done, and possibly resolve the promise to some default value (or error).
A promise that auto-resolves after a timeout, on the other hand, is a straightforward utility function of obvious usefulness, and requires no additional work:
Promise.delay = function(ms) { return new Promise(function(r) { setTimeout(r, ms); }); }
(Not tested, but this should be approximately right.)
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 3:21 AM, Andrea Giammarchi
<andrea.giammarchi at gmail.com> wrote:
> Not sure if discussed already but I believe `.cancel()` or
> `.forgetAboutIt()` mechanism should be proposed before introducing any
> `.delay()`
>
> Promises often put developers in unmanaged roads where things keep being
> "forgotten" and/or impossible to drop without ending up in the next chain,
> undesired, or the error stack, even less desired.
>
> What I mean is that if `setTimeout` is a desired pattern to replicate
> through `.delay(ms)`, but I really don't understand why that would be a
> desired pattern at all, `clearTimeout` functionality should be considered as
> well.
>
> A generic `.cancel()` would be most likely the easier approach but it should
> be implemented upfront.
Cancelable promises are a completely different beast; it's not just a
matter of adding a new method to Promise.prototype, it's changing the
data structure pretty fundamentally. Suddenly you have a new
value-affecting capability, but it's exposed outside of the
constructor. You need to be able to react to a cancellation, so you
can actually cancel the work being done, and possibly resolve the
promise to some default value (or error).
A promise that auto-resolves after a timeout, on the other hand, is a
straightforward utility function of obvious usefulness, and requires
no additional work:
Promise.delay = function(ms) {
return new Promise(function(r) { setTimeout(r, ms); });
}
(Not tested, but this should be approximately right.)
~TJ
I thought promises were introduced to simply the "whenever it happens" pattern ... using a delay seems a pretty pointless feature to me and setTimeout worked so far (15 years?) pretty well and it is cancelable.
Regardless delay though, canceling, beast or not, should be considered before all these changes will make it "impossible" to implement, IMO
I thought promises were introduced to simply the "whenever it happens"
pattern ... using a delay seems a pretty pointless feature to me and
setTimeout worked so far (15 years?) pretty well and it is cancelable.
Regardless delay though, canceling, beast or not, should be considered
before all these changes will make it "impossible" to implement, IMO
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 2:52 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage at gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 3:21 AM, Andrea Giammarchi
> <andrea.giammarchi at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Not sure if discussed already but I believe `.cancel()` or
> > `.forgetAboutIt()` mechanism should be proposed before introducing any
> > `.delay()`
> >
> > Promises often put developers in unmanaged roads where things keep being
> > "forgotten" and/or impossible to drop without ending up in the next
> chain,
> > undesired, or the error stack, even less desired.
> >
> > What I mean is that if `setTimeout` is a desired pattern to replicate
> > through `.delay(ms)`, but I really don't understand why that would be a
> > desired pattern at all, `clearTimeout` functionality should be
> considered as
> > well.
> >
> > A generic `.cancel()` would be most likely the easier approach but it
> should
> > be implemented upfront.
>
> Cancelable promises are a completely different beast; it's not just a
> matter of adding a new method to Promise.prototype, it's changing the
> data structure pretty fundamentally. Suddenly you have a new
> value-affecting capability, but it's exposed outside of the
> constructor. You need to be able to react to a cancellation, so you
> can actually cancel the work being done, and possibly resolve the
> promise to some default value (or error).
>
> A promise that auto-resolves after a timeout, on the other hand, is a
> straightforward utility function of obvious usefulness, and requires
> no additional work:
>
> Promise.delay = function(ms) {
> return new Promise(function(r) { setTimeout(r, ms); });
> }
>
> (Not tested, but this should be approximately right.)
>
> ~TJ
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20141027/1071814c/attachment.html>
There's already a way to cancel a Promise -- use its reject function. eg.
var reject;
Promise.delay(100/*ms*/).then(function() { reject(new Error('took too
long')); });
return new Promise(function(resolve, _reject) {
reject = _reject;
resolve(doSomethingTimeConsuming());
});
There's no need to rethink or redesign anything.
See cscott/prfun#promisetimeoutint-ms--string-message--promise for a nice example, borrowed from bluebird.
There's already a way to cancel a Promise -- use its `reject` function. eg.
```js
var reject;
Promise.delay(100/*ms*/).then(function() { reject(new Error('took too
long')); });
return new Promise(function(resolve, _reject) {
reject = _reject;
resolve(doSomethingTimeConsuming());
});
```
There's no need to rethink or redesign anything.
See https://github.com/cscott/prfun#promisetimeoutint-ms--string-message--promise
for a nice example, borrowed from `bluebird`.
--scott
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 3:20 PM, Andrea Giammarchi
<andrea.giammarchi at gmail.com> wrote:
> I thought promises were introduced to simply the "whenever it happens"
> pattern ... using a delay seems a pretty pointless feature to me and
> setTimeout worked so far (15 years?) pretty well and it is cancelable.
>
> Regardless delay though, canceling, beast or not, should be considered
> before all these changes will make it "impossible" to implement, IMO
>
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 2:52 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 3:21 AM, Andrea Giammarchi
>> <andrea.giammarchi at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Not sure if discussed already but I believe `.cancel()` or
>> > `.forgetAboutIt()` mechanism should be proposed before introducing any
>> > `.delay()`
>> >
>> > Promises often put developers in unmanaged roads where things keep being
>> > "forgotten" and/or impossible to drop without ending up in the next
>> > chain,
>> > undesired, or the error stack, even less desired.
>> >
>> > What I mean is that if `setTimeout` is a desired pattern to replicate
>> > through `.delay(ms)`, but I really don't understand why that would be a
>> > desired pattern at all, `clearTimeout` functionality should be
>> > considered as
>> > well.
>> >
>> > A generic `.cancel()` would be most likely the easier approach but it
>> > should
>> > be implemented upfront.
>>
>> Cancelable promises are a completely different beast; it's not just a
>> matter of adding a new method to Promise.prototype, it's changing the
>> data structure pretty fundamentally. Suddenly you have a new
>> value-affecting capability, but it's exposed outside of the
>> constructor. You need to be able to react to a cancellation, so you
>> can actually cancel the work being done, and possibly resolve the
>> promise to some default value (or error).
>>
>> A promise that auto-resolves after a timeout, on the other hand, is a
>> straightforward utility function of obvious usefulness, and requires
>> no additional work:
>>
>> Promise.delay = function(ms) {
>> return new Promise(function(r) { setTimeout(r, ms); });
>> }
>>
>> (Not tested, but this should be approximately right.)
>>
>> ~TJ
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>
canceling should not pass through any errorback chain... Canceling is like an explicit abort on xhr ... Not an error, not a fulfillment, it's a third state: cancelled
canceling should **not** pass through any errorback chain... Canceling is like an explicit abort on xhr ... Not an error, not a fulfillment, it's a third state: cancelled
-----Original Message-----
From: "C. Scott Ananian" <ecmascript at cscott.net>
Sent: 27/10/2014 19:39
To: "Andrea Giammarchi" <andrea.giammarchi at gmail.com>
Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage at gmail.com>; "Mark S. Miller" <erights at google.com>; "Domenic Denicola" <domenic at domenicdenicola.com>; "Mark Miller" <erights at gmail.com>; "es-discuss list" <es-discuss at mozilla.org>
Subject: Re: Promise-returning delay function
There's already a way to cancel a Promise -- use its `reject` function. eg.
```js
var reject;
Promise.delay(100/*ms*/).then(function() { reject(new Error('took too
long')); });
return new Promise(function(resolve, _reject) {
reject = _reject;
resolve(doSomethingTimeConsuming());
});
```
There's no need to rethink or redesign anything.
See https://github.com/cscott/prfun#promisetimeoutint-ms--string-message--promise
for a nice example, borrowed from `bluebird`.
--scott
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 3:20 PM, Andrea Giammarchi
<andrea.giammarchi at gmail.com> wrote:
> I thought promises were introduced to simply the "whenever it happens"
> pattern ... using a delay seems a pretty pointless feature to me and
> setTimeout worked so far (15 years?) pretty well and it is cancelable.
>
> Regardless delay though, canceling, beast or not, should be considered
> before all these changes will make it "impossible" to implement, IMO
>
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 2:52 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 3:21 AM, Andrea Giammarchi
>> <andrea.giammarchi at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Not sure if discussed already but I believe `.cancel()` or
>> > `.forgetAboutIt()` mechanism should be proposed before introducing any
>> > `.delay()`
>> >
>> > Promises often put developers in unmanaged roads where things keep being
>> > "forgotten" and/or impossible to drop without ending up in the next
>> > chain,
>> > undesired, or the error stack, even less desired.
>> >
>> > What I mean is that if `setTimeout` is a desired pattern to replicate
>> > through `.delay(ms)`, but I really don't understand why that would be a
>> > desired pattern at all, `clearTimeout` functionality should be
>> > considered as
>> > well.
>> >
>> > A generic `.cancel()` would be most likely the easier approach but it
>> > should
>> > be implemented upfront.
>>
>> Cancelable promises are a completely different beast; it's not just a
>> matter of adding a new method to Promise.prototype, it's changing the
>> data structure pretty fundamentally. Suddenly you have a new
>> value-affecting capability, but it's exposed outside of the
>> constructor. You need to be able to react to a cancellation, so you
>> can actually cancel the work being done, and possibly resolve the
>> promise to some default value (or error).
>>
>> A promise that auto-resolves after a timeout, on the other hand, is a
>> straightforward utility function of obvious usefulness, and requires
>> no additional work:
>>
>> Promise.delay = function(ms) {
>> return new Promise(function(r) { setTimeout(r, ms); });
>> }
>>
>> (Not tested, but this should be approximately right.)
>>
>> ~TJ
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20141028/04a28de0/attachment-0001.html>
So throw a different class of Error, or resolve with a different type of object. Can you substantiate your assertion better?
In my experience, regularity of control flow constructs is a feature, not a bug. I don't want to have to reason about some "third way" control flow.
So throw a different class of Error, or resolve with a different type of object. Can you substantiate your assertion better? In my experience, regularity of control flow constructs is a feature, not a bug. I don't want to have to reason about some "third way" control flow. --scott -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20141028/3719252a/attachment.html>
The moment you pass a promise you have no control on who's adding what as callback or errorback which means you have no control over a .reject() or over a .success()
.cancel() would eventually keep both queues unresolved so that nothing should happen at all: no error handling, no error happened, and no actions needed ... it's simply canceled.
This is the same reason .fetch() API needs also events to work properly (including progress) ... you "cannot" base as example typeahead on promises right now 'cause it's a mess to handle since response order is not guaranteed but you need to handle the .cancel() case without telling the user something else went wrong ... what you suggest, a new Noop() where Noop.prototype = Object.create(Error.prototype) ?
And how do you instruct unknown surrounding code that an if (err instanceof Noop) should be the first line of every errback ?
This is the reason few devs cannot adopt current standard Promises.
.cancel() as well as .abort() is very important when many network operations are in place and/or you want to switch to a different state without waiting for the previous one to be fulfilled.
new Promise(function (resolve, reject, cancel) {}); is the dumbest idea I could have now beside new Promise(function (resolve, reject) {}).on('cancel', cancelback).then(whatever) one
Anyway, this would deserve IMO a thread a part but I hope this topic will be discussed at some point.
Best
The moment you pass a promise you have no control on who's adding what as
callback or errorback which means you have no control over a .reject() or
over a .success()
.cancel() would eventually keep both queues unresolved so that nothing
should happen at all: no error handling, no error happened, and no actions
needed ... it's simply canceled.
This is the same reason .fetch() API needs also events to work properly
(including `progress`) ... you "cannot" base as example typeahead on
promises right now 'cause it's a mess to handle since response order is not
guaranteed but you need to handle the .cancel() case without telling the
user something else went wrong ... what you suggest, a `new Noop()` where
`Noop.prototype = Object.create(Error.prototype)` ?
And how do you instruct unknown surrounding code that an `if (err
instanceof Noop)` should be the first line of every errback ?
This is the reason few devs cannot adopt current standard Promises.
`.cancel()` as well as `.abort()` is **very** important when many network
operations are in place and/or you want to switch to a different state
without waiting for the previous one to be fulfilled.
`new Promise(function (resolve, reject, cancel) {});` is the dumbest idea I
could have now beside `new Promise(function (resolve, reject)
{}).on('cancel', cancelback).then(whatever)` one
Anyway, this would deserve IMO a thread a part but I hope this topic will
be discussed at some point.
Best Regards
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 2:13 PM, C. Scott Ananian <ecmascript at cscott.net>
wrote:
> So throw a different class of Error, or resolve with a different type of
> object. Can you substantiate your assertion better?
>
> In my experience, regularity of control flow constructs is a feature, not
> a bug. I don't want to have to reason about some "third way" control flow.
> --scott
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20141028/19b80c30/attachment.html>
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 10:41 AM, Andrea Giammarchi < andrea.giammarchi at gmail.com> wrote:
The moment you pass a promise you have no control on who's adding what as callback or errorback which means you have no control over a .reject() or over a .success()
.cancel() would eventually keep both queues unresolved so that nothing should happen at all: no error handling, no error happened, and no actions needed ... it's simply canceled.
This is the same reason .fetch() API needs also events to work properly (including
progress) ... you "cannot" base as example typeahead on promises right now 'cause it's a mess to handle since response order is not guaranteed but you need to handle the .cancel() case without telling the user something else went wrong ... what you suggest, anew Noop()whereNoop.prototype = Object.create(Error.prototype)?And how do you instruct unknown surrounding code that an
if (err instanceof Noop)should be the first line of every errback ?This is the reason few devs cannot adopt current standard Promises.
.cancel()as well as.abort()is very important when many network operations are in place and/or you want to switch to a different state without waiting for the previous one to be fulfilled.
new Promise(function (resolve, reject, cancel) {});is the dumbest idea I could have now besidenew Promise(function (resolve, reject) {}).on('cancel', cancelback).then(whatever)oneAnyway, this would deserve IMO a thread a part but I hope this topic will be discussed at some point.
Best
I agree w/ Scott re: regularity of flow control, and I'd be particularly uneasy if a cancel method on a promise had any impact on upstream handlers. But ISTM something like this could be made to work (even if it looks a bit silly):
var cancelled;
var never = new Promise(function () {});
Promise.delay(100/*ms*/).then(function(value) {
return cancelled ? never : value;
}, function (error) {
return cancelled ? never : throw error;
});
function cancel() { cancel = true };
This could be cleaned up into a cancellation helper to quash downstream promises (this kind of utility would be a good use case for an always method if one isn't yet spec'd).
Though I do wonder what happens to promises like these that get dropped on the floor? Will downstream handlers be GC'd? Is this specified in any way? I imagine dev tools want to warn about these kinds of promises — it may be helpful to have a way to signal that a promise was intentionally quashed.
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 10:41 AM, Andrea Giammarchi <
andrea.giammarchi at gmail.com> wrote:
> The moment you pass a promise you have no control on who's adding what as
> callback or errorback which means you have no control over a .reject() or
> over a .success()
>
> .cancel() would eventually keep both queues unresolved so that nothing
> should happen at all: no error handling, no error happened, and no actions
> needed ... it's simply canceled.
>
> This is the same reason .fetch() API needs also events to work properly
> (including `progress`) ... you "cannot" base as example typeahead on
> promises right now 'cause it's a mess to handle since response order is not
> guaranteed but you need to handle the .cancel() case without telling the
> user something else went wrong ... what you suggest, a `new Noop()` where
> `Noop.prototype = Object.create(Error.prototype)` ?
>
> And how do you instruct unknown surrounding code that an `if (err
> instanceof Noop)` should be the first line of every errback ?
>
> This is the reason few devs cannot adopt current standard Promises.
>
> `.cancel()` as well as `.abort()` is **very** important when many network
> operations are in place and/or you want to switch to a different state
> without waiting for the previous one to be fulfilled.
>
> `new Promise(function (resolve, reject, cancel) {});` is the dumbest idea
> I could have now beside `new Promise(function (resolve, reject)
> {}).on('cancel', cancelback).then(whatever)` one
>
> Anyway, this would deserve IMO a thread a part but I hope this topic will
> be discussed at some point.
>
> Best Regards
>
I agree w/ Scott re: regularity of flow control, and I'd be particularly
uneasy if a `cancel` method on a promise had any impact on upstream
handlers. But ISTM something like this could be made to work (even if it
looks a bit silly):
```js
var cancelled;
var never = new Promise(function () {});
Promise.delay(100/*ms*/).then(function(value) {
return cancelled ? never : value;
}, function (error) {
return cancelled ? never : throw error;
});
function cancel() { cancel = true };
```
This could be cleaned up into a cancellation helper to quash downstream
promises (this kind of utility would be a good use case for an `always`
method if one isn't yet spec'd).
Though I do wonder what happens to promises like these that get dropped on
the floor? Will downstream handlers be GC'd? Is this specified in any way?
I imagine dev tools want to warn about these kinds of promises — it may be
helpful to have a way to signal that a promise was intentionally quashed.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20141028/d2ef60f3/attachment.html>
You probably want streams for typeahead, not promises.
You probably want streams for typeahead, not promises. --scott
Dean, your idea is even better as a Promise subclass.
The subclassed cancellable promises could share a cancel flag, and throw an exception (or resolve to a different value, whichever you like better for the API) when the cancel flag is set. The then method on CancellablePromise returns another CancellablePromise (the spec is nicely written this way), and you use Promise.resolve to cast to a standard Promise to end the cancellation chain at an appropriate place.
See the Promise.bind implementation in prfun for an example of using subclasses in this way: cscott/prfun/blob/master/lib/index.js#L518 --scott
ps. Of course, to be precise, your API would be a factory function which makes a new subclass of CancellablePromise for each cancel scope, since the Promise spec associates the state with the constructor identity. (I had some small issues with the "new subclass for each X" mechanism in an earlier attempt at creating MonadicPromise using subclasses, but I think these were ultimately resolved in the spec---and in that case I was creating a new subclass for each call to Promise.resolve, which was a whole 'nuther kettle of fish.)
Dean, your idea is even better as a `Promise` *subclass*.
The subclassed cancellable promises could share a cancel flag, and
throw an exception (or resolve to a different value, whichever you
like better for the API) when the cancel flag is set. The `then`
method on `CancellablePromise` returns another `CancellablePromise`
(the spec is nicely written this way), and you use `Promise.resolve`
to cast to a standard `Promise` to end the cancellation chain at an
appropriate place.
See the `Promise.bind` implementation in `prfun` for an example of
using subclasses in this way:
https://github.com/cscott/prfun/blob/master/lib/index.js#L518
--scott
ps. Of course, to be precise, your API would be a factory function
which makes a new subclass of `CancellablePromise` for each cancel
scope, since the Promise spec associates the state with the
constructor identity. (I had some small issues with the "new subclass
for each X" mechanism in an earlier attempt at creating MonadicPromise
using subclasses, but I think these were ultimately resolved in the
spec---and in that case I was creating a new subclass for each call to
`Promise.resolve`, which was a whole 'nuther kettle of fish.)
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 11:21 AM, Dean Landolt <dean at deanlandolt.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 10:41 AM, Andrea Giammarchi
> <andrea.giammarchi at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> The moment you pass a promise you have no control on who's adding what as
>> callback or errorback which means you have no control over a .reject() or
>> over a .success()
>>
>> .cancel() would eventually keep both queues unresolved so that nothing
>> should happen at all: no error handling, no error happened, and no actions
>> needed ... it's simply canceled.
>>
>> This is the same reason .fetch() API needs also events to work properly
>> (including `progress`) ... you "cannot" base as example typeahead on
>> promises right now 'cause it's a mess to handle since response order is not
>> guaranteed but you need to handle the .cancel() case without telling the
>> user something else went wrong ... what you suggest, a `new Noop()` where
>> `Noop.prototype = Object.create(Error.prototype)` ?
>>
>> And how do you instruct unknown surrounding code that an `if (err
>> instanceof Noop)` should be the first line of every errback ?
>>
>> This is the reason few devs cannot adopt current standard Promises.
>>
>> `.cancel()` as well as `.abort()` is **very** important when many network
>> operations are in place and/or you want to switch to a different state
>> without waiting for the previous one to be fulfilled.
>>
>> `new Promise(function (resolve, reject, cancel) {});` is the dumbest idea
>> I could have now beside `new Promise(function (resolve, reject)
>> {}).on('cancel', cancelback).then(whatever)` one
>>
>> Anyway, this would deserve IMO a thread a part but I hope this topic will
>> be discussed at some point.
>>
>> Best Regards
>
>
>
> I agree w/ Scott re: regularity of flow control, and I'd be particularly
> uneasy if a `cancel` method on a promise had any impact on upstream
> handlers. But ISTM something like this could be made to work (even if it
> looks a bit silly):
>
> ```js
> var cancelled;
> var never = new Promise(function () {});
> Promise.delay(100/*ms*/).then(function(value) {
> return cancelled ? never : value;
> }, function (error) {
> return cancelled ? never : throw error;
> });
> function cancel() { cancel = true };
> ```
>
> This could be cleaned up into a cancellation helper to quash downstream
> promises (this kind of utility would be a good use case for an `always`
> method if one isn't yet spec'd).
>
> Though I do wonder what happens to promises like these that get dropped on
> the floor? Will downstream handlers be GC'd? Is this specified in any way? I
> imagine dev tools want to warn about these kinds of promises — it may be
> helpful to have a way to signal that a promise was intentionally quashed.
I actually don't want Promises at all with network interactions but you have to explain this to all developers out there that think Promises are the Eldorado for everything asynchronous ... I found myself needing a cancel mechanism that goes beyond your outer scoped flag.
I really need to drop that action ... not to wait for it to fulfill and then do something else.
Imagine it's not about network, imagine it's "a lift" ... door are closing, someone passes in the middle, what do you do now: sound the alert after chopping the person that tried to enter in the meanwhile or change floor ... after chopping the person anyway ?
If promises could handle edge cases events too I think we could handle above situation instead of chopping that poor person.
I hope you got what I mean but again this most likely need another thread.
Best
I actually don't want Promises at all with network interactions but you have to explain this to all developers out there that think Promises are the Eldorado for everything asynchronous ... I found myself needing a cancel mechanism that goes beyond your outer scoped flag. I really need to **drop that action** ... not to wait for it to fulfill and then do something else. Imagine it's not about network, imagine it's "a lift" ... door are closing, someone passes in the middle, what do you do now: sound the alert after chopping the person that tried to enter in the meanwhile or change floor ... after chopping the person anyway ? If promises could handle edge cases events too I think we could handle above situation instead of chopping that poor person. I hope you got what I mean but again this most likely need another thread. Best Regards On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 3:21 PM, C. Scott Ananian <ecmascript at cscott.net> wrote: > You probably want streams for typeahead, not promises. > --scott > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20141028/71e5a164/attachment-0001.html>
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 2:24 PM, Andrea Giammarchi <andrea.giammarchi at gmail.com> wrote:
I really need to drop that action ... not to wait for it to fulfill and then do something else.
This is orthogonal to the use of Promises, which just discuss control flow.
Imagine it's not about network, imagine it's "a lift" ... door are closing, someone passes in the middle, what do you do now: sound the alert after chopping the person that tried to enter in the meanwhile or change floor ... after chopping the person anyway ?
You call the Door.interrupt() API method to indicate that a person is present/cancel the opening.
Again, this is orthogonal to the Promise that the Door.close() method returned. If Door.close() returned a Promise, then that promise could then resolve to "cancelled" value (instead of "success"), or else you could decide that rejecting the promise with a DoorCloseInterrupted exception makes more sense.
The asynchronous cancellation mechanism is not related to Promises, and shouldn't be conflated with the Promise API. The Promise mechanism just directs control flow after the door has either been successfully closed or cancelled.
Concretely:
function tryToAscend() {
return Door.close().then(function() { return raiseLift(); },
function(e) { return Door.open().delay(10*1000).then(tryToAscend); });
};
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 2:24 PM, Andrea Giammarchi
<andrea.giammarchi at gmail.com> wrote:
> I really need to **drop that action** ... not to wait for it to fulfill and
> then do something else.
This is orthogonal to the use of Promises, which just discuss control flow.
> Imagine it's not about network, imagine it's "a lift" ... door are closing,
> someone passes in the middle, what do you do now: sound the alert after
> chopping the person that tried to enter in the meanwhile or change floor ...
> after chopping the person anyway ?
You call the `Door.interrupt()` API method to indicate that a person
is present/cancel the opening.
Again, this is orthogonal to the Promise that the `Door.close()`
method returned. If `Door.close()` returned a Promise, then that
promise could then resolve to "cancelled" value (instead of
"success"), or else you could decide that rejecting the promise with a
`DoorCloseInterrupted` exception makes more sense.
The asynchronous cancellation mechanism is not related to Promises,
and shouldn't be conflated with the Promise API. The Promise
mechanism just directs control flow after the door has either been
successfully closed or cancelled.
Concretely:
```
function tryToAscend() {
return Door.close().then(function() { return raiseLift(); },
function(e) { return Door.open().delay(10*1000).then(tryToAscend); });
};
```
--scott
Again, you might have an error that comes from "ringTheAlarmBell()" API ... you are making the problem simple but simple is not the moment all you do is returning a Promise with binary result (success/error) without considering that when you reopen, much more could happen ... you want to branch out, not keeping doing the same action and that error could come for many reasons.
Your control flow here, if you have to take care of all cases, will become a mess full of nested callbacks ... oh, irony
Again, you might have an error that comes from "ringTheAlarmBell()" API ...
you are making the problem simple but simple is not the moment all you do
is returning a Promise with binary result (success/error) without
considering that when you reopen, much more could happen ... you **want**
to branch out, not keeping doing the same action and that error could come
for many reasons.
Your control flow here, if you have to take care of all cases, will become
a mess full of nested callbacks ... oh, irony
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 7:39 PM, C. Scott Ananian <ecmascript at cscott.net>
wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 2:24 PM, Andrea Giammarchi
> <andrea.giammarchi at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I really need to **drop that action** ... not to wait for it to fulfill
> and
> > then do something else.
>
> This is orthogonal to the use of Promises, which just discuss control flow.
>
> > Imagine it's not about network, imagine it's "a lift" ... door are
> closing,
> > someone passes in the middle, what do you do now: sound the alert after
> > chopping the person that tried to enter in the meanwhile or change floor
> ...
> > after chopping the person anyway ?
>
> You call the `Door.interrupt()` API method to indicate that a person
> is present/cancel the opening.
>
> Again, this is orthogonal to the Promise that the `Door.close()`
> method returned. If `Door.close()` returned a Promise, then that
> promise could then resolve to "cancelled" value (instead of
> "success"), or else you could decide that rejecting the promise with a
> `DoorCloseInterrupted` exception makes more sense.
>
> The asynchronous cancellation mechanism is not related to Promises,
> and shouldn't be conflated with the Promise API. The Promise
> mechanism just directs control flow after the door has either been
> successfully closed or cancelled.
>
> Concretely:
> ```
> function tryToAscend() {
> return Door.close().then(function() { return raiseLift(); },
> function(e) { return Door.open().delay(10*1000).then(tryToAscend); });
> };
> ```
>
> --scott
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20141028/84ce28ea/attachment-0001.html>
I don't see any evidence that you can't handle the various cases with the usual control flow mechanisms. Remember that promises are isomorphic to the future async/await syntax.
I don't see any evidence that you can't handle the various cases with the usual control flow mechanisms. Remember that promises are isomorphic to the future async/await syntax. --scott
async and await would fail here same way indeed, there should be a mechanism to branch out the binary expected result, IMO.
The other thread and the fact .NET already has something similar should probably ring some bell but it's probably there that we should discuss this.
async and await would fail here same way indeed, there should be a mechanism to branch out the binary expected result, IMO. The other thread and the fact .NET already has something similar should probably ring some bell but it's probably there that we should discuss this. Regards On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 10:12 PM, C. Scott Ananian <ecmascript at cscott.net> wrote: > I don't see any evidence that you can't handle the various cases with > the usual control flow mechanisms. > Remember that promises are isomorphic to the future async/await syntax. > --scott > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20141028/24edcb6a/attachment.html>
Again, I don't see how this requires some new sort of control flow.
Again, I don't see how this requires some new sort of control flow. --scott
try to put a cancel in your same code:
function tryToAscend() {
return Door.close().then(function() { return raiseLift(); },
function(e) { return Door.open().delay(10*1000).then(tryToAscend); });
};
because when the door opens somebody cancel the floor and wants to descend instead.
Then implement the case when actually the call was simply canceled and nobody has to go anywhere ... all while delay keeps saying to each floor that after 10 seconds doors should close anyway.
Now try to pass this glorious flow around per each panel in each floor that should behave accordingly.
Can you do this via Promises? 'cause I'm pretty sure that code won't look any better than an event based one, but I can be wrong.
try to put a cancel in your same code:
```js
function tryToAscend() {
return Door.close().then(function() { return raiseLift(); },
function(e) { return Door.open().delay(10*1000).then(tryToAscend); });
};
```
because when the door opens somebody cancel the floor and wants to descend
instead.
Then implement the case when actually the call was simply canceled and
nobody has to go anywhere ... all while delay keeps saying to each floor
that after 10 seconds doors should close anyway.
Now try to pass this glorious flow around per each panel in each floor that
should behave accordingly.
Can you do this via Promises? 'cause I'm pretty sure that code won't look
any better than an event based one, but I can be wrong.
Regards
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 10:30 PM, C. Scott Ananian <ecmascript at cscott.net>
wrote:
> Again, I don't see how this requires some new sort of control flow.
> --scott
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20141028/c9354580/attachment-0001.html>
Follow up on esdiscuss.org/topic/promise-returning-delay-function
I think we really need that function, with AbortController support
We could do things like
const abortFetch = new AbortController();
const abortTimeout = new AbortController();
await Promise.race([
Promise.delay(5000, {signal: abortTimeout.signal}),
fetch(url, {signal: abortFetch.signal}).then(r => r.json()).then(...),
])
.finally(() => {
abortFetch.abort();
abortTimeout.abort(); // avoid mem leaks, that would call clearTimeout
under the hood
})
Follow up on https://esdiscuss.org/topic/promise-returning-delay-function
I think we really need that function, with AbortController support
We could do things like
```js
const abortFetch = new AbortController();
const abortTimeout = new AbortController();
await Promise.race([
Promise.delay(5000, {signal: abortTimeout.signal}),
fetch(url, {signal: abortFetch.signal}).then(r => r.json()).then(...),
])
.finally(() => {
abortFetch.abort();
abortTimeout.abort(); // avoid mem leaks, that would call clearTimeout
under the hood
})
```
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20201227/2b0fd72b/attachment.html>
For Node.js we implemented this as an alternative to the current setTimeout:
const { setTimeout } = require('timers/promises')
// Or
import { setTimeout } from 'timers/promises'
Then...
await setTimeout(500)
It works very well and is straightforward to implement on the browser-side.
For Node.js we implemented this as an alternative to the current setTimeout:
const { setTimeout } = require('timers/promises')
// Or
import { setTimeout } from 'timers/promises'
Then...
await setTimeout(500)
It works very well and is straightforward to implement on the browser-side.
On Sun, Dec 27, 2020, 09:56 Cyril Auburtin <cyril.auburtin at gmail.com> wrote:
> Follow up on https://esdiscuss.org/topic/promise-returning-delay-function
>
> I think we really need that function, with AbortController support
>
> We could do things like
>
> ```js
> const abortFetch = new AbortController();
> const abortTimeout = new AbortController();
>
> await Promise.race([
> Promise.delay(5000, {signal: abortTimeout.signal}),
> fetch(url, {signal: abortFetch.signal}).then(r => r.json()).then(...),
> ])
> .finally(() => {
> abortFetch.abort();
> abortTimeout.abort(); // avoid mem leaks, that would call clearTimeout
> under the hood
> })
> ```
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20201227/c2606fff/attachment.html>
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4