On Apr 24, 2014, at 11:08 AM, Jason Orendorff wrote: > On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 10:24 AM, Andreas Rossberg <[email protected]> > wrote: >>> JH: Iterators are claiming to Iterables, which is a lie. >> >> I argued this very point in the past (after a discussion with Dmitry), >> but wasn't very successful: >> >> https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2013-March/029004.html >> >> I agree with you on this point, and still think that the current >> iterator/iterable model is rather incoherent and the iterable concept >> thus not really useful -- you cannot reliably write abstractions based >> on it. > > Python has the same "incoherent" model and people constantly write > abstractions based on iterables in Python. > > Iterators are claiming to be iterables, which is true. They are > iterable. You can iterate over them. It has well-defined behavior and > a lot of programs do it. > > It's disappointing to see arguments in TC39 notes and on es-discuss > that are contradicted in the clearest possible way by ten years of > experience in a widely used language.
I also, as a Smalltalker, with this "incoherent" model. But I think talk of changing it is a distraction from the real issue. At the TC39 meeting the attendees pretty strongly put aside Jafar's suggestion to change the current @@interator model. What we did take seriously was the concern about not running generator finally blocks when a for-of initiated generator has an early exit. We don't need to redefine @@iterator conventions to address that issue. Allen _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
