> > - The term promise is used in JavaScript. > - A large number of programmers use JavaScript. These are very strong arguments. Yeah, JS didn't form my worldview (thank god). But, I totally agree with you that if we will forget the C++, then "promise" is a perfectly fine word for describing Lwt thread values. But please still consider adding a small comment about the terminology ambiguity as a tribute for the C++ background :) As you may see, we can get confused)) I also like the resolver :) It is non-ambiguous (you can't confuse promise and resolver, that's nice). On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 2:41 PM, Anton Bachin wrote: > Ivan, > > I personally would have preferred to call them futures. I actually come > from a C++ background, including modern C++, and also I just like the > word "future" more than "promise." > > However, I read through some articles, blogs, and SO posts, and came > away with the impression that the terminology is really not settled > between languages. Given that, I chose "promise" and "resolver" with the > following reasoning: > > - The term promise is used in JavaScript. > - A large number of programmers use JavaScript. > - Lwt compiles to JavaScript sometimes. > - We may want to give special support for interfacing between Lwt and > JavaScript promises one day [1]. > - Presumably, the people who standardized on "promise" in JavaScript had > good reasons for doing so, which I don't have time to deeply > investigate at the moment. While it is true that C++, among other > communities, standardized on different terminology, and also had good > reasons for doing so, the JavaScript precedent suggests that "promise" > is somehow defensible. I am "calling" on this precedent as an opaque > "library" of argument and experience. This may be a mistake :) > - I believe, during their process, JavaScript eventually explicitly > rejected > both terms "future" and "deferred." > - "resolver" is just what I was left with after assigning "promise" to > what I thought should be "future" :) > > The work-in-progress manual uses these terms. > > It is possible to change the terminology, with suitable arguments. The > terminology issue is in GitHub [2]. > > Best, > Anton > > > [1]: https://github.com/ocsigen/lwt/issues/270 > [2]: https://github.com/ocsigen/lwt/issues/300 > > > El ene 6, 2017, a las 12:00, Ivan Gotovchits escribió: > > These are the great news! > > And thanks for the maintainers notification, it was really helpful :) > > I have one comment, though: > > > >> Values of types 'a Lwt.t are now called promises rather than threads. >> This should eliminate a lot of confusion for beginners. > > > And create a confusion for seasoned programmers, especially for those who > are accustomed to > C++ newly introduced concepts, like promises and futures, where a promise > has quite an opposite > meaning. In short, it has the same meaning as a value of type `'a > Lwt.u`, i.e., it is an object through > which a promise can be fulfilled. I think that it is better to refer to > Lwt.t threads as futures because they > are the values, whose value is determined in the future. Another way to > name them is `deferred`, again > for the same reason. You can also say, that a value of type `'a Lwt.t` is > a computation. You can also try > to borrow names from the Standard ML community, where `'a Lwt.t` like > objects are named as IVars. > > Finally, you may also find this project interesting [1]. This is an > attempt to factor out the core idea from both > Core Async and Lwt. In particular, the Future library allows us to write a > monadic code, that is independent > of a particular implementation (Lwt or Async or Identity monad). > > [1]: https://github.com/BinaryAnalysisPlatform/bap/ > blob/master/lib/bap_future/bap_future.mli > > On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 11:08 AM, Anton Bachin > wrote: > >> Greetings, >> >> I am pleased to announce release 2.7.0 of Lwt. >> >> https://github.com/ocsigen/lwt >> >> The primary goals of this release are (1) to improve communication >> between maintainers and users, and (2) to prepare for (minor) breaking >> changes to some APIs in Lwt 3.0.0 (planned for April). The changelog is >> available here: >> >> https://github.com/ocsigen/lwt/releases/tag/2.7.0 >> >> - Lwt now uses deprecation warnings ([@deprecated]), especially for >> upcoming breaking changes [1]. This required dropping support for >> OCaml 4.01. >> - There is a gradual, communicative, conservative process for >> deprecation and breaking [2]. Maintainers of packages in OPAM get >> notified proactively (see [1] again). If you have code not published >> in OPAM, watch the Lwt repo, recompile the code at least once in three >> months, watch this mailing list, or subscribe to the Lwt announcements >> issue [3]. >> - If a planned breaking change is a bad idea, please let the maintainers >> know when you see the warning. >> - Lwt now uses semantic versioning [4]. The major version will grow >> slowly but steadily, but this does not mean that the whole API is >> being redesigned or broken. >> >> If you are releasing a package to OPAM that depends on Lwt, it is not >> recommended to constrain Lwt to its current major version. A major >> release of Lwt will break only a few APIs, and your package is likely >> not to be affected – if it is, you will be notified. You may, however, >> wish to constrain Lwt to a major version in your private or production >> code. >> >> - The main OPAM package lwt is getting rid of some optional >> dependencies in 3.0.0, which are now installable through separate OPAM >> packages lwt_ssl, lwt_glib, lwt_react. This is to reduce recompilation >> of Lwt when installing OPAM packages ssl, lablgtk, and react. >> - Values of types 'a Lwt.t are now called promises rather than threads. >> This should eliminate a lot of confusion for beginners. >> >> Lwt 2.7.0 also has a number of more ordinary changes, such as bug fixes >> and the addition of bindings to writev and readv. See the full >> changelog [5]. >> >> I am working on an all-new manual, including fully rewritten API >> documentation with examples. It should be ready towards the end of >> winter. >> >> My hope is that all the above allows Lwt to be taken progressively into >> the future, at the same time making development more open and more >> humane :) >> >> Best, >> Anton >> >> >> [1]: https://github.com/ocsigen/lwt/issues/308 >> [2]: https://github.com/ocsigen/lwt/issues/293 >> [3]: https://github.com/ocsigen/lwt/issues/309 >> [4]: http://semver.org/ >> [5]: https://github.com/ocsigen/lwt/releases/tag/2.7.0 >> >> >> -- >> Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management and archives: >> https://sympa.inria.fr/sympa/arc/caml-list >> Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners >> Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs > > > >