Re: Intent to ship DOM Promises

2014-01-30 Thread Jason Orendorff
On 1/30/14 9:06 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > On 1/30/14 5:03 AM, Till Schneidereit wrote: >> What are the plans for moving Promises into SpiderMonkey? > > Moving Promises per se is not hard. > > The hard part is that this requires SpiderMonkey to grow a concept of > an even loop. The event loop itse

Re: Intent to ship DOM Promises

2014-01-30 Thread Boris Zbarsky
On 1/30/14 5:03 AM, Till Schneidereit wrote: What are the plans for moving Promises into SpiderMonkey? Moving Promises per se is not hard. The hard part is that this requires SpiderMonkey to grow a concept of an even loop. And then we have to decide whether it's built-in or embedding-provid

Re: Intent to ship DOM Promises

2014-01-30 Thread Till Schneidereit
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 9:07 PM, wrote: > On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 10:35:24 AM UTC-8, Nikhil Marathe wrote: > > As off January 28, our DOM Promises implementation implements the es6 > > > > promises spec. [1] > > > > It is feature complete, and passes the Promises/A+ tests. [2] > > > > I in

Re: Intent to ship DOM Promises

2014-01-29 Thread nsm . nikhil
On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 10:35:24 AM UTC-8, Nikhil Marathe wrote: > As off January 28, our DOM Promises implementation implements the es6 > > promises spec. [1] > > It is feature complete, and passes the Promises/A+ tests. [2] > > I intend to enable it by default this week so that it ships

Intent to ship DOM Promises

2014-01-29 Thread Nikhil Marathe
As off January 28, our DOM Promises implementation implements the es6 promises spec. [1] It is feature complete, and passes the Promises/A+ tests. [2] I intend to enable it by default this week so that it ships in Firefox 30. Caveats: We don't support subclassing, which is a ES6 feature, but neith