On Feb 18, 2014, at 11:38 PM, C. Scott Ananian wrote:
[resending to list, original was sent from wrong address and got bounced]
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 11:12 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
al...@wirfs-brock.com wrote:
On Feb 18, 2014, at 12:44 PM, C. Scott Ananian wrote:
```js
var SubPromise =
Digging up old threads, but is there a way to test for newborn generators?
To my knowledge they are the only iterable that does not allow a value to
be passed in at a specific time.
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
Bradley Meck wrote:
Digging up old threads, but is there a way to test for newborn generators?
No.
To my knowledge they are the only iterable that does not allow a value
to be passed in at a specific time.
What do you mean by does not allow?
/be
take for example a function that accepts an iterator:
```javascript
function test(name, iterable) {
try {
var iterator = iterable[Symbol.iterator]();
console.log(name,'with value for first next', iterator.next(1))
}
catch(e) {
console.error(name,'failed value for first next', e);
Bradley Meck wrote:
If I am reading the spec right (and I may not be), only the generator
should fail? The first call to gen().next(value) must have value be
undefined, and the others do not check.
I thought we agreed at the January 28 meeting to get rid of this error,
but I can't find it
5 matches
Mail list logo
