+1 on arrowed generators! Have being actively using generators last month & have being wishing they could be like arrows, although syntax I've being thinking of was
(x, y) *> { .... } BTW given that generators are used as a method on iterators wouldn't it make sense to consider syntax for generator members in a classes syntax ?? My hope is in ES6 we would just use class syntax for methods & arros for functions making "function" a legacy On Monday, November 18, 2013, Brendan Eich wrote: > Ѓорѓи Ќосев wrote: > >> Its harder to scan whether this is a generator arrow function or a normal >> arrow function because the star is too far away: >> >> someFunction(*(someArgument, anotherArgument) => { >> ... code ... >> }); >> >> compared to this form, where its immediately obvious that this is not a >> regular function, just by looking at the composed symbol (arrow-star) >> >> someFunction((someArgument, anotherArgument) =>* { >> ... code ... >> }); >> > > I buy it. This is what I'll propose next week as concrete syntax. It's a > small point, but the rationale is "the star goes after the first token that > identifies the special form as a function form." For generator functions, > that token is 'function'. For arrows, it is '=>'. > > /be > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > es-discuss@mozilla.org > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > -- Regards -- Irakli Gozalishvili Web: http://www.jeditoolkit.com/
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss