Bug Tracker

Opened 11 years ago

Closed 11 years ago

Last modified 10 years ago

#11395 closed enhancement (wontfix)

Promises should use the term "fulfilled" instead of "resolved"

Reported by: [email protected] Owned by:
Priority: undecided Milestone: None
Component: unfiled Version: 1.7.1
Keywords: Cc: jaubourg
Blocked by: Blocking:


I had a discussion with Promises/A spec co-creator Kris Kowal recently, who blames himself for misusing the words "resolved" and "rejected" in a way that later came to be adopted by jQuery.

Currently, jQuery Promises transition from their initial *pending* state into either a *resolved* state (when the Deferred's resolve() method is called) or a *rejected* state (when the Deferred's rejected() method is called). There's no good term for a Promise that's been either resolved or rejected ("non-pending"?).

In the Promises/A spec and its implementations, what jQuery calls the *resolved* state is instead called *fulfilled*, and a Promise is said to be "resolved" when it's either fulfilled or rejected.

I would suggest that jQuery move in this direction by deprecating the resolve() method in favor of an alias named fulfill(), just as complete() was renamed to always(). Since this wouldn't affect backward-compatibility, it could be done immediately. In 1.8, the string returned by the state() method could be changed from "resolved" to "fulfilled", and the documentation could be updated to use the new terminology.

This would, in my view, greatly reduce confusion in the long term. I don't really care about jQuery deviating from the Promises/A spec (notably with then(); see #11010), but I do care about good terminology. To my mind, it makes a lot of sense to have two dichotomies: fulfilled vs. rejected, and pending vs. resolved.

Change History (6)

comment:1 Changed 11 years ago by Rick Waldron

Resolution: wontfix
Status: newclosed

This is just more surface area that is unnec. I'm going to close this as wont fix - if @jaubourg deems it highly important, he can re-open it.

comment:2 Changed 11 years ago by dmethvin

When the co-creator of Unix, Ken Thompson, was once asked what he would change about the OS, he supposedly said, "I would spell creat() with an 'e'." So Kris Kowal is in great company.

To me, #11010 is *very* important because we need to interoperate with other implementations.

comment:3 Changed 11 years ago by dmethvin

Cc: jaubourg added

comment:4 Changed 11 years ago by [email protected]

+1, this is getting confusing with other libraries.

comment:5 Changed 10 years ago by anonymous

+1 it make more sense to fulfil a promise. How soon can this bug be resolved?

comment:6 Changed 10 years ago by mikesherov

Thanks for contributing, but bumping doesn't change the resolution. It's not going to be resolved. That's why it's marked as wontfix :-)

Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.