Ambiguous signature of Observable.subscribe()

[laughinghan]

It's unclear to me from the current spec what the following does:

const foo = val => console.log('foo: ' + val);
foo.next = val => console.log('next: ' + val);
anObservable.subscribe(foo);

When the observable publishes an event, what gets logged, foo: or next: or both or neither?

Also, it would be nice if the proposal provided some justification for why both signatures are necessary. Why not, similar to promises, only have the subscribe(onNext : Function, onError? : Function, onComplete? : Function) : Subscription signature?

[benjamingr]

The spec is specific about this: foo would get called.

[appsforartists]

I believe the section @benjamingr is referring to is subscribe(), which checks if its first argument is callable, and uses that to create an observer in the shape { next: arguments[0], error: arguments[1], complete: arguments[2] } if it is.

[psxcode]

Maybe it should be like in Promises
Promise checks if something is thenable
Maybe here we should check if something is nextable

[appsforartists]

Can someone please propose a concrete use case for monkeypatching a next method onto a function?

It seems to be such an unlikely case that I don't care which one gets called. Preferring next might be a little simpler to reason about/test in code, but I feel like we're wasting time solving for something that has little practical value.

As we've discussed, the current proposal is not ambiguous about how subscribe tries its argument. Therefore, unless someone has a compelling reason to change the specced behavior, we should close this issue.

[laughinghan]

It was my mistake, I thought the README was the spec. (Maybe this should be clear in the README too? Or is this too edge-case-y?)

I can't think of any concrete use case for why someone would monkeypatch a .next() method onto a function and desire that it be called. However, I do think there is practical value in being consistent with Promises.

I also do think there's practical value in being simpler by having only a single signature for one of this proposal's principle APIs.

Closing because my original question was answered.