Path to Stage 4!

[ljharb]

Stage 4

• [ ] committee approval
• [x] two implementations
  • [x] WebKit, behind a flag and with arg forwarding (PR) - no longer behind a flag (PR)
  • [x] Keisel
  • [x] Boa
  • [x] LibJS
  • [x] Chrome / v8 (v128)
  • [x] Firefox / spidermonkey issue issue 2 (behind a flag in v132 nightly, targeted for 133 or 134 unflagged)
  • [x] Bun (tweet)
  • [x] CloudFlare Workers (tweet
• [x] significant in-the-field experience
• [x] ecma262 PR approved
• [x] prepare ecma262 PR (PR)

~Stage 3~

• [x] merge test262 tests
• [x] write test262 tests (PR)
• [x] receive implementer feedback

~Stage 2.7~

• [x] committee approval
• [x] spec editor signoff
  • [x] @syg
  • [x] @bakkot
  • [x] @michaelficarra
• [x] spec reviewer signoff
  • [x] @gibson042
  • [x] @rkirsling
• [x] spec reviewers selected
• [x] answer open questions
  • [x] #9 / #16

~Stage 2~

• [x] incorporate enumeration (#17)
• [x] committee approval
• [x] spec text written

~Stage 1~

• [x] committee approval

[rkirsling]

LGTM overall; my one comment would be that maybe we should include the NOTE attached to Promise.resolve here too.

[ljharb]

Thanks, done in fdb9bd2

[rkirsling]

Went ahead and implemented it in JSC right away: https://github.com/WebKit/WebKit/commit/6d51d579af47028306a003653150ade5d395f942

[syg]

Editorially, spec draft lgtm.

Normatively, I'd like https://github.com/tc39/proposal-promise-try/pull/16 merged (which also lgtm).

[bakkot]

LGTM with #16.

[michaelficarra]

LGTM

[linusg]

Implemented in Kiesel: https://codeberg.org/kiesel-js/kiesel/commit/5e215d3dc8839768960343f4ca7e2764c188828a

[linusg]

This was so simple that I decided to implement it in two more engines :)

• Boa: https://github.com/boa-dev/boa/pull/3800
• LibJS: https://github.com/SerenityOS/serenity/pull/23898

[gibson042]

I have reservations about Promise.try accepting variadic arguments that leave no room for ever specifying a receiver—setting it apart from Function.prototype.{apply,call} and Reflect.apply. However, they do not rise to the level of a blocking concern. Consider this a signoff from me.

[jridgewell]

I have reservations about Promise.try accepting variadic arguments that leave no room for ever specifying a receiver—setting it apart from Function.prototype.{apply,call} and Reflect.apply.

AsyncContext is also doing this for our run methods, so this won't be the only one.

[gibson042]

I have reservations about Promise.try accepting variadic arguments that leave no room for ever specifying a receiver—setting it apart from Function.prototype.{apply,call} and Reflect.apply.

AsyncContext is also doing this for our run methods, so this won't be the only one.

Then the same concerns apply there: https://github.com/tc39/proposal-async-context/issues/80

[Delapouite]

Here's the Bugzilla link to follow Firefox's implementation: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1905241

[lishaduck]

Haven't updated to 128 yet, but it seems to support this! (https://developer.chrome.com/release-notes/128#promisetry)

[alexsch01]

https://github.com/WebKit/WebKit/pull/31556 So webkit now enables this by default it seems