Make all() handle multiple rejected promises.

[calmh]

This fixes issue #30.

[rap1ds]

Would it make sense to call deferred.reject immediately, if the promise will be rejected anyway sooner or later? Is there a reason why wait all promises to be resolved/rejected?

IMO it would make more sense to call deferred.reject immediately and add an if(!rejected) so that deferred.reject wouldn't be called twice.

[rap1ds]

Another thing: If the promise is rejected but no error message or error object is passed, the deferred is resolved because if(!rejected) is truthy.

Anyway, I'm really hoping to see these issues fixed and the pull request to be merged. +1 These issues are kind of blockers to me.

[calmh]

@rap1ds I wanted to preserve the semantics of "all", i.e. wait for all promises to resolve (or reject) before continuing. Anyway, you're right about the second issue, a separate state variable is needed to handle the case of reject without an error object. I'm not really using promised-io any more but if you want to make a new pull request with the improved behavior, do so and I'll close this one instead.

[rap1ds]

@calmh Ok, I made a pull request. I decided to reject the all() as soon as possible because the original implementation did so too.

However, I can understand that in some cases it would make sense to wait for all promises before continuing.

[calmh]

Superseded.