Jussi Kalliokoski <mailto:[email protected]>
September 1, 2013 5:38 AM
Sorry if this has been brought up before,
It has, even in this thread.
but why `function *` (which looks like a pointer to a function more
than a generator
This is JS, please take off your C/C++ hat :-P.
) instead of something clearer, e.g. `generator myGenerator () {}`? I
see the obvious ASI hazard, but this can be mitigated by not allowing
unnamed generators, e.g. `{ myGenerator: generator _ () {} } `,
This doesn't work in general, it is backward-incompatible. If someone
bound or assigned to generator in-scope, your proposed change could
break compatibility -- or else require parsing to depend on name binding.
foo = generator
bar()
{}
Remember, if there wasn't an error, ASI doesn't apply. Trying to "patch"
this bad theory with a [no LineTerminator here] restriction to the right
of 'generator' does not work in the grammar without reserving
'generator' -- we can't put that restriction to the right of every
Identifier on the right of every expression production.
Please stamp this on all inner eyelids so I don't have to repeat it ad
nauseum. Thanks!
/be
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
