ig-types 6.12.0 → 6.12.1

This diff represents the content of publicly available package versions that have been released to one of the supported registries. The information contained in this diff is provided for informational purposes only and reflects changes between package versions as they appear in their respective public registries.
Files changed (2) hide show
  1. package/README.md +17 -11
  2. package/package.json +1 -1
package/README.md CHANGED
@@ -1389,7 +1389,7 @@ controlled(t.then())
1389
1389
  // ...
1390
1390
  ```
1391
1391
 
1392
- Note that functionally this can be considered a special-case of an
1392
+ Note that this functionally can be considered a special-case of an
1393
1393
  [interactive promise](#interactive-promises), but in reality they are two
1394
1394
  different implementations, the main differences are:
1395
1395
  - _Cooperative promise_ constructor does not need a resolver function,
@@ -1485,8 +1485,6 @@ var p = Promise.iter([ .. ])
1485
1485
  // ...
1486
1486
  })
1487
1487
  // items reach here as soon as they are returned by the filter stage handler...
1488
- // NOTE: the filter handler may return promises, those will not be processed
1489
- // until they are resolved...
1490
1488
  .map(function(e){
1491
1489
  // ...
1492
1490
  })
@@ -1504,6 +1502,12 @@ This approach has a number of advantages:
1504
1502
  And some disadvantages:
1505
1503
  - item indexes are unknowable until all the promises resolve.
1506
1504
 
1505
+ Calling each of the `<promise-iter>` methods will return a new and unresolved
1506
+ promise, even if the original is resolved.
1507
+
1508
+ If all values are resolved the `<promise-iter>` will resolve on the next
1509
+ execution frame.
1510
+
1507
1511
  <!--
1508
1512
  XXX should we support generators as input?
1509
1513
  ...not sure about the control flow direction here, on one hand the generator
@@ -1582,19 +1586,21 @@ and [`.reduce(..)`](https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Refe
1582
1586
 
1583
1587
  Note that these are different to `Array`'s equivalents in some details:
1584
1588
  - `<handler>` is _not_ called in the order of element occurrence but rather
1585
- in the order of elements are resolved/ready.
1589
+ in the order of elements are resolved/ready.
1586
1590
  - `<handler>` does not get either the element _index_ or the _container_.
1587
- this is because the index with _out-of-order_ and _depth-first_ execution the
1588
- index is unknowable and the container is a promise/black-box.
1591
+ this is because in _out-of-order_ and _depth-first_ execution the
1592
+ index is _unknowable_ and the container is a promise/black-box.
1589
1593
 
1590
- This is especially critical for `.reduce(..)` as iteration in an order different
1591
- from the order of elements _can_ affect actual result if this is not expected.
1594
+ This is especially critical for `.reduce(..)` as the iteration in an order
1595
+ different from the order of elements _can_ affect actual result if this is
1596
+ not expected.
1592
1597
 
1593
1598
  `.reduce(..)` is also a bit different here in that it will return a basic
1594
- `<promise>` object as we can't know what will it will reduce to.
1599
+ `<promise>` rather than an iterable promise object as we can't know what
1600
+ will it will reduce to.
1595
1601
 
1596
- Note that since `.reduce(..)` order can not be guaranteed there is no point
1597
- in implementing `.reduceRigth(..)`.
1602
+ Note that since `.reduce(..)` handler's execution order can not be known,
1603
+ there is no point in implementing `.reduceRigth(..)`.
1598
1604
 
1599
1605
 
1600
1606
  #### `<promise-iter>.flat(..)`
package/package.json CHANGED
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
1
1
  {
2
2
  "name": "ig-types",
3
- "version": "6.12.0",
3
+ "version": "6.12.1",
4
4
  "description": "Generic JavaScript types and type extensions...",
5
5
  "main": "main.js",
6
6
  "scripts": {