I was absolutely under that assumption. Streams allow the event loop to run between iterations, unlike yield, that's where it gets tricky and converting a stream based logic to task.js isn't straight forward.
On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 11:24 AM, Brendan Eich <[email protected]> wrote: > Hemanth H.M wrote: > >> Yes, I'm aware of taskjs. >> >> So it's not a good idea to mix streams and generators! >> > > No, it's important not to think yield from a generator function nested in > another will yield from the *outer* one. That seems to be what you thought, > in all the variations. > > Passing a function as a "downward funarg", whether generator or not, means > the callee or whatever code eventually does something with that funarg may > not call it before control returns to the outer function's activation -- > and returns from there. > > Thinking about concurrency requires more than generators. Generators > return iterators which can be used synchronously, or not. If you write > async patterns, including callbacks or event listeners set by .on(), it's > up to you to schedule things. This is not a fault of generators, or of > streams (or of event emitters in general). > > /be > -- *'I am what I am because of who we all are'* h3manth.com <http://www.h3manth.com> *-- Hemanth HM *
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
