On Apr 30, 2013, at 4:55 PM, David Herman <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Apr 30, 2013, at 7:25 AM, Brendan Eich <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Andreas Rossberg wrote: >>> And as Andy points out correctly, that raises the question whether >>> having 'close' makes much sense at all. >> >> I think we have evolved away from it. Cc'ing Dave to confirm. > > I'm cool with it, and I agree on type grounds as well: forcing a return > without a value may break the expected return type of the generator, which > might not want to return undefined. Whereas the "throws" type makes more > sense as an open, extensible type. It also has a smell to it: the idea that an expression can cause a return, without the syntactic appearance of `return`. (I'm not opposed to the idea of being able to return from expressions -- I still love do-expressions. But I prefer `return` to be a syntactically apparent control effect.) Dave _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
