On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 8:56 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> > On behalf of twg, I vote Endorse G. on the below decisions. > > I vote as follows: > > On 6/6/2020 10:01 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-official wrote: > > 8409* Aris 3.0 College of Letters, Arts, and > Sciences > FOR > > > 8410e Aris 2.2 Promise Powers Patch > AGAINST. Wait, what? I would likely have intended no chaining of > promises when I voted for that text). I can see where you're coming from on this. This isn't a patch in the sense of patching a bug, it's just something that works differently from the way I wanted it to work when I wrote it (and a good example of why we don't just listen to authorial intent). The previous rule that I based this on provided a way to make a promise not get destroyed when it gets cached (or at least I think it did). I thought that was somewhat confusing way to handle it, and that the promise could just make a copy of itself. Or another contract. But then when I was in the final phase of drafting, I realized my previous text could be used to mousetrap zombies. I didn't want that, so I slapped an "acting on eir own behalf" restriction on it. I forgot that that would also prevent promise chaining too. But even worse, it prevents a contract from creating promises. This is one of the biggest use-cases for promises. As written, the restriction stops you from doing all sorts of things that you should be able to do. So, I sincerely apologize if calling this a "patch" was misbranding. It's not a certifiable one. I called it that not in an attempt to mislead people into passing a change, but because it seemed like a patch from my perspective. -Aris >
