Sindre Sorhus

Duplicate of #429

`Array#includes` would be better for this, which we already have a rule for, so I'm not sure the point of this rule?

Ok. This rule makes sense then. We should make what you said above clear in the rule docs though.

This is now accepted.

> Maybe, should if (foo.indexOf('bar') < 0) {} also be checked? No point, since it's already caught by `prefer-includes`.

The benefit of `new Promise()` is that it makes it harder to make mistakes. For example, it's easier to cause an unhandled rejection with `Promise.withResolvers()` or accidentally synchronously throw in...

@fregante I'm not saying `Promise.withResolvers` is not useful, but this issue is asking to prefer `Promise.withResolvers`, and I'm arguing that `new Promise` is a better default.

I misunderstood your statement. I used to use `p-defer` more before, but transitioned to `new Promise` for the reasons I mentioned.

👍

Accepted, with the mentioned limited scope.