On Sep 3, 2011, at 12:19 PM, Dean Landolt wrote: > On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 7:15 AM, Jorge <[email protected]> wrote: > On 02/09/2011, at 18:08, Mikeal Rogers wrote: > > > fibers turns node.js in to something the core team doesn't really view as > > being "node.js" any longer. > > > > we believe that it's more important to have assurances that your state > > can't mutate between anything but a callback and that breaking that means > > you're basically breaking node. > > But fibers don't break that guarantee (if it exists at all: contexts are > *not* immutable, even without fibers). > > A `wait` construct does. But what I think Mikeal misunderstands is that > generators aren't fibers, and `wait`, at least as it exists in something like > fiber.js, is not explicitly possible. IIUC the invariant he's concerned about > isn't actually broken.
That's right. Generators do not make it possible for a function foo calling bar() directly, without using yield explicitly, to lose its invariants. I've been over this with Mikeal before, but perhaps on Twitter (which isn't the best place for talking about things like invariants ;-). /be
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
