On Oct 26, 2013, at 4:59 PM, Lucio Tato <[email protected]> wrote:
> Rick: I understand. But it is always a trade-off.
>
> If the reason to introduce a new construct is because there may already be
> code that defines a function called `yield`, it seems to me as a bad
> trade-off. (advantages vs disadvantages)
>
> In your example...
> function yield() {... <- will raise a parsing error.
>
You can’t make yield a reserved word — which is what you’re asking for here.
This isn’t a matter of whether or not you use generators, it’s a matter of
whether other code in the same environment ever uses a property named yield.
All of the options necessarily require breaking yield in existing code
> Anyway, there are other ways to solve that.
> You can put the asterisk in "yield" instead of the important "function". It's
> a lot less confusing.
>
> function fibonacci() {
> let [prev, curr] = [0, 1];
> for (;;) {
> [prev, curr] = [curr, prev + curr];
> yield*(curr);
This already parses a (yield)*(curr)
Please stop trying to get rid of the *, there isn’t any other viable option,
and this has been covered ad nauseum on es-discuss
—Oliver_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
