What exactly would be the semantic difference between this and just using 'yield'?
Sam On Apr 22, 2013 5:40 PM, "Domenic Denicola" <[email protected]> wrote: > From: Sam Tobin-Hochstadt [[email protected]] > > > I don't see what the point of `await` is in your gist. It looks like > all of the work is being done by `function^`, which looks to be sugar for > creating a function and passing it to a scheduler like `Q.async` or > `taskjs.spawn`. We could add that sugar if we wanted, and not need to add > `await`. > > It's all a bit fuzzy in my head, I admit, but the idea is that `yield` > should not have its meaning "taken over" by the promises-scheduler meaning. > E.g. you could envision something that used both promises and generators, > perhaps to yield a list of values retrieved asynchronously: > > ```js > // ES6 > > function* doubleSomeNumbers() { > return getNumbersToDouble().then(function* (numbers) { > for (var i = 0; i < numbers.length; ++i) { > yield numbers[i] * 2; > } > }); > } > > > // ES-after-6: > > function*^ doubleSomeNumbers() { > const numbers = await getNumbersToDouble(); > > for (var i = 0; i < numbers.length; ++i) { > yield numbers[i] * 2; > } > } > ``` > > This is obviously contrived, but I think illustrates how you might want to > use both `yield` and `await` for their different meanings, instead of > letting the wait-for-a-promise meaning take over `yield`. >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
