On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 11:34 AM, Axel Rauschmayer <[email protected]> wrote:
> It would be great to have await, but in the meantime having generator > functions would help male async methods tolerable. Await is ES7 at the > earliest, generator arrow functions could be in ES6. > > > Couldn’t arrow generator functions replace generator function > declarations? In other words: is the dynamic `this` in generator function > declarations ever useful? > As useful as it is in non-generator function declarations and expressions. I agree that a generator arrow function adds balance, but replacement of generator function declarations contradicts a balance. > Then we’d have a nice symmetry in ES6: > > – non-method function = const + arrow function. > – method = concise method definition > > – non-method generator function = const + arrow generator function. > – generator method = concise generator method definition > Let me counter with: function declaration, generator function declaration function expression, generator function expression concise method, concise generator method arrow function (, generator arrow function) > > That would make the async programming code more compact, too (I’m assuming > a nullary paren-free arrow variant and I prefer the asterisk after the > arrow): > To be clear, this preference is inconsistent with all other generator forms where the asterisk is before the params, per Brandon's original examples. Rick
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
