On Oct 21, 2011, at 10:20 AM, John J Barton wrote: > My comment is entirely subjective and intended to be positive about Q.
We like Q too. :-) > The examples on the async-generators page cites above are clearer than the > ones on the MDC generators page because they focus on "next()". The strong > case for generators is support for generic, encapsulated iteration. Examples > illustrating this power would go a long way to build the case for them IMO. > Examples of quirky iteration do not. I agree, and thanks for the MDC comments -- I'll get some editing help deployed. > Now back to Zyp's key point: using async functionality for iteration, > powerful or not, does not address the key use-case for async. Not by itself. But to avoid rehashing, I'll stop here. > In particular, Q simplifies joining parallel async operations (XHR, > postMessages, 'load', 'progress' events). Of course it may well be that > generators provide an elegant solution to this important problem, but I've > not seen such examples. Not having to nest a callback and risk closure leaks (which Erik Corry nicely diagrammed in his JSConf.eu talk) is important. Please attend to this recurrent problem, about which I've been crystal clear. /be _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
