Hi Ben,
Sorry for the very late response.
This is quite an interesting work, thanks for sharing!
I'm particularly interested in your test suite [1] which is impressive.
This is making me realize that generators are fully compilable
(efficiently from what I can see) into ES5 and makes me wonder if the
current generators specificities are worth it. Very specifically, do we
really need Generator.prototype [ @@toStringTag ] === "Generator" ?
From an author point of view, I don't really see in which situation
this information could matter. As a comparison, functions generated
after the class syntax do not have an @@toStringTag to "Class".
Generators would just be sugar to write iterators (+ .throw)
Le 03/11/2013 21:55, Ben Newman a écrit :
* Given that this tool will become obsolete as more and more engines
implement ES6 generator functions, how can we maximize its value
in the meantime? Are there grey areas in the draft spec that can
be illuminated? Should I spend my time implementing (or getting
others to implement) await syntax and/or control-flow libraries
that leverage generator syntax?
You can most certainly experiment with await syntax and share what
you've learned.
Are there any test cases that you've written and you feel like the
expected spec behavior is odd or unintuitive in some aspect?
* How would you design a system that selectively delivers transpiled
code to ES5-capable browsers and native generator code to
ES6-capable browsers, so that end users will benefit immediately
when they upgrade to a browser with native support for generators?
Since there is no semantic difference between the ES6 and your compiled
version, it's unlikely the users will see a difference at all (not even
sure the perf is that much different).
But if you really want to try there are different options with
different downsides.
1) Server-side UA sniffing. You get the User-Agent header, infer which
browser it is and decide which version you should be sending. Send the
ES5 version when you don't know the UA (safe default)
Downsides:
* if a browser changes its header, you may be sending the wrong version.
This is a problem when you're sending the ES6 version to a non-ES6
browser (which admittedly should be a very rare case)
* You need to update the list of ES6 User-Agent strings as new browsers
arrive
2) Send a feature-detection JS snippet on the client which will decide
which version to load.
Downside:
* having to wait until this snippet is executed to start code download
(or one extra round-trip if code was originally inlined)
3) send compiler to the client-side
Downside:
* more code
Personally, I'd go for sending the ES5 version to everyone. My second
choice would be 1), but I guess it depends on the requirements.
David
[1] https://github.com/facebook/regenerator/blob/master/test/tests.es6.js
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
