Resolver API should hide resolve() about promises HOT 5 CLOSED

The semantics of accept and resolve are different, and accept is the lower-level variant. It sounds like your suggestion is to give accept (now fulfill) the resolve semantics and move the accept semantics to finalAccept?

I'm not sure what that buys us. There is active disagreement about weather or not programmers should use accept or resolve, and removing one or the other is hostile to at least one camp.

from promises.

@slightlyoff,

When would a user ever need to invoke fulfill directly? Shouldn't users always invoke resolve?

from promises.

@cowwoc the semantics are different - resolve will unwrap/resolve promises passed as the value whereas fulfill just blindly takes the value it's given and passes it along.

  // Directly resolves the Promise with the passed value
  void fulfill(optional any value);

  // Indirectly resolves the Promise, chaining any passed Promise's resolution
  void resolve(optional any value);

from promises.

So you're saying fulfill() causes the promise to override any values returned by subsequent chains? Why/when when you want to do that?

from promises.

Why/when when you want to do that?

see #53 (and i think #26 as well and maybe another or maybe it was in various other places) - a lot of ground has already been covered in those tickets.

from promises.