Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

New intro, and other textual revisions #117

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Jun 9, 2013
Merged

New intro, and other textual revisions #117

merged 4 commits into from
Jun 9, 2013

Conversation

domenic
Copy link
Member

@domenic domenic commented May 27, 2013

Woo.

@domenic
Copy link
Member Author

domenic commented Jun 2, 2013

So uh any general comments? Shall we merge?

@briancavalier
Copy link
Member

Haven't had time to look it over thoroughly yet. I'll have time on Monday.

domenic added 4 commits June 7, 2013 03:05
- Move `promise1 !== promise2` non-requirement to "Omissions" from "Additions".
- Add `onFulfilled` and `onRejected` called as functions requirement (new in 1.1) to "Additions".
- Change "returns a promise" to "returns a thenable", and expand upon what has been added (i.e. the resolution procedure).
- Use "reason" instead of "rejection reason".
- Rewrite the "Clarifications" section for better structure and clarity.
- Add "thenable" to the list of things we clarify.
@domenic
Copy link
Member Author

domenic commented Jun 7, 2013

Comments addressed and new revisions force-pushed.

@domenic
Copy link
Member Author

domenic commented Jun 8, 2013

If there's no objections over the next day or so, I think I'll merge this.

@briancavalier
Copy link
Member

I will look at this quickly tomorrow evening.

@domenic
Copy link
Member Author

domenic commented Jun 8, 2013

@briancavalier
Copy link
Member

Thanks, very helpful

@juandopazo
Copy link
Contributor

I was having a nice discussion related to the promise topic, I remembered the intro as "A promise represents a value that may not be available yet", thought of coming here and propose to change that to something about "operations" and you had already changed it.

👍

@briancavalier
Copy link
Member

lgtm. Merging since there haven't been any other objections or suggestions.

briancavalier added a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 9, 2013
New intro, and other textual revisions
@briancavalier briancavalier merged commit 7567f36 into master Jun 9, 2013
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants