I pretty much abandoned that line of investigation with the conclusion that
generators:
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:generators
are a good (and well-tested, in Python and SpiderMonkey) design for
single-frame continuations. They hang together well; in particular, they
PS To be concrete, here's an example code snippet using my jstask library that
chains several event-generated actions together in a natural way (i.e., in
direct style, i.e. not in CPS):
var task = new Task(function() {
var request = new HttpRequest();
try {
var
It might surprise some who know me to hear this, but I agree with Dave
on this. There's a huge gap between the single-frame mechanism and
going the whole hog. Going all out does buy you some expressive
power, but at the cost of complicating everything. If the simple
mechanism gives you most of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
The generators from JS 1.7 are too specific to provide much help with
promises, IMO. Adding a yield operator fundamentally alters the
semantics of the entire surrounding function, violating the principle
of locality. Consequently you need special
var task = new Task(function() {
var request = new HttpRequest();
try {
var foo = yield request.send(this, foo.json);
var bar = yield request.send(this, bar.json);
var baz = yield request.send(this, baz.json);
} catch
This reminds me of a proposal by Kris Zyp a couple of months ago
(single frame continuations)
https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2010-March/010865.html
I don't think that discussion lead to a clear outcome, but it's definitely
related, both in terms of goals as well as in
On Dec 9, 2010, at 3:27 PM, David Herman wrote:
I'm not trying to open the can-o'-worms around block level changes. The
above code suggests that a 'yield' suspension of execution is local to the
nearest container { } block, in this case the try { } block.
No, that's not the case. That
7 matches
Mail list logo
