David Bruant wrote:
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)
The answer is that class constructor is a Function instance, not a
ClassFunction instance, because classes are mostly sugar for the
prototypal pattern, whereas generators do *not* desugar in any
translating-not-compiling sense.
Matthias Felleisen wrote a paper, "On the Expressive Power of
Programming Languages", that gets at the difference between compilation
in general and translation or desugaring. You say generators are sugar
to write iterators (+ .throw), but my understanding per Felleisen is
that's an abuse of "sugar". Regenerator is a compiler, not a translator
of like-to-like-expressiveness languages.
/be
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
