Greets, Thanks for the kind words! And thanks also for the new iteration proposal; it looks great to my ignorant eyes. I'll probably take a look at for-of next.
On Thu 02 May 2013 20:07, David Herman <[email protected]> writes: >> IMHO yield* should be specified to return the result object as-is, >> without re-boxing. This precludes a straightforward desugaring, but it >> is probably more flexible. > > This is an interesting question. I agree that the intuition of yield* is > chaining together continuation frames and therefore "just pass on > through" seems like the Right Thing. It's only maybe slightly > disconcerting that yield* therefore actually gives you additional power > that you can't otherwise express locally (i.e., you have to transform > the entire containing generator function). But I'm with you, this seems > right to me. I was working on this today and thought better of my original proposal. It would be nice to assume that calling next() on a generator returns a { value, done } object, and that is not necessarily the case if we pass on the result from calling some other iterator: > let next = send ? g.send(received) : g.throw(received); Here "g" might not be a generator object -- though we could specify that it is [*] -- and "next" might not have the { value, done } form. It might not even be an object, in which case getting the "value" would fail at an even greater distance from the original error. This is a very small point in the scheme of things, but it seemed to me that desugaring as "yield next.value" was probably less confusing to users. WDYT? Regards, Andy [*] If we specify that "g" is a generator object, then this question is moot: the identity of the result of "g.send(receiver)" is not visible. _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
