On Nov 16, 2013, at 3:32 AM, John Barton johnjbar...@google.com wrote:
Could someone help me understand why two goals for parsing JS is a good thing?
Hm, it sounds like you've assumed a conclusion already. Let me try to explain
anyway.
Scripts are for synchronous loading and evaluation;
What I don't understand is why generator expressions are not used
as the only way to create generators, leaving 'function' alone.
We have been over this before: to support flows that for-of loops cannot
expression, specifically coroutine libraries such as http://taskjs.org/.
Which is why I
Caveat: with yield*, you want generators to be more like functions than like
blocks.
[[[Sent from a mobile device. Please forgive brevity and typos.]]]
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
a...@rauschma.de
Home: http://rauschma.de
Blog: http://2ality.com
On 16.11.2013, at 10:28, Claus Reinke
Heck, why not just add async functions to the agenda?
There's:
- Promises, yay
- A well-establish use-case, which is awkward to implement without (as the
original post demonstrates)
- Strong syntactic precedent with C#
- Strong semantic cowpath with TaskJS
- Strong developer interest
- A year to
Does this imply module src= ?
On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 12:30 AM, David Herman dher...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Nov 16, 2013, at 3:32 AM, John Barton johnjbar...@google.com wrote:
Could someone help me understand why two goals for parsing JS is a good
thing?
Hm, it sounds like you've assumed
Kevin Smith mailto:zenpars...@gmail.com
November 16, 2013 6:56 AM
Heck, why not just add async functions to the agenda?
They are on the further-out agenda for ES7, but Object.observe is ahead,
and it is driving the event-loop task/microtask specification, which
async functions need too. None
Claus Reinke wrote:
What I don't understand is why generator expressions are not used
as the only way to create generators, leaving 'function' alone.
We have been over this before: to support flows that for-of loops
cannot expression, specifically coroutine libraries such as
John Lenz wrote:
Column numbers are essential.
Yes! Can't forget those. Anything else source-map related?
/be
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
- A year to work out any kinks : )
No, you're wrong --
I welcome correction as always, but I would appreciate being able to post
to es-discuss without having to worry about this kind of backlash. Thanks.
___
es-discuss mailing list
Kevin Smith wrote:
- A year to work out any kinks : )
No, you're wrong --
I welcome correction as always, but I would appreciate being able to
post to es-discuss without having to worry about this kind of
backlash. Thanks.
Sorry. How about you're mistaken? :-|
Allen has
Brendan Eich wrote:
Sorry. How about you're mistaken? :-|
Wow, still grumpy when I wrote that. Yikes.
Ok, trying again: please accept my apology for laying about with the
personal Y pronoun, the to-be verb, and wrong. That's never
productive. The why leading to any such conclusion is the
Thanks - and thanks for pointing out the dependency on a scheduling
specification. 3, for real.
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
On Nov 16, 2013, at 7:54 AM, Matthew Robb matthewwr...@gmail.com wrote:
Does this imply module src= ?
Works either way, inline or external. (Requiring src= is one of the reasons
why script async was a non-starter.)
Dave
___
es-discuss mailing list
3 this, it matches my go-back-to-1995 dreams.
/be
On Nov 16, 2013, at 9:14 PM, David Herman dher...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Nov 16, 2013, at 7:54 AM, Matthew Robb matthewwr...@gmail.com wrote:
Does this imply module src= ?
Works either way, inline or external. (Requiring src= is one of
I like it. If there is a desire to stay closer to script I could see
script module and script module=
On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 10:16 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
3 this, it matches my go-back-to-1995 dreams.
/be
On Nov 16, 2013, at 9:14 PM, David Herman dher...@mozilla.com
15 matches
Mail list logo
