Consider two examples below...
function test1() {
return new Promise(function () {
return 123;
});
}
test1()
.then(function (data) {
console.log("DATA:", data);
return 456;
})
.then(function (value) {
console.log("VALUE:", value);
});
It outputs nothing.
function test2() {
return new Promise(function (resolve, reject) {
resolve(123);
});
}
test2()
.then(function (data) {
console.log("DATA:", data);
return 456;
})
.then(function (value) {
console.log("VALUE:", value);
});
It outputs:
DATA: 123
VALUE: 456
What are the drawbacks or spec contradictions for a promise constructor not to simply resolve a returned value in TEST 1?
Why does it have to be a different result than in TEST 2?
I'm trying to understand how a constructed promise object is different from a then-able object as per the promise spec.
The function passed to Promise
isn't a callback for onFulfilled
or onRejected
. MDN calls it the executor
. Think of it as the async context that the promise is attempting to capture. Returning from an async method doesn't work (or make sense), hence you have to call resolve
or reject
. For example
var returnVal = new Promise(function() {
return setTimeout(function() {
return 27;
});
});
... does not work as intended. If you were to return a value from the executor
before your async calls finished, the promise couldn't be re-resolved.
Also, it could be ambigous with the implicit return undefined;
at the end of the function. Consider these executors that function the same way.
// A
function a() { return undefined; }
// B
function b() { }
What would tell the Promise
constructor that you really wanted to resolve with undefined
?
a() === b(); // true
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With