On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 7:24 PM, Dave Herman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> But I'd still rather not try to understand generators
>> by CPS-transforming the relevant bits of the RI.
>
> A little confused here-- was that an errant "not"?
No. I meant that, since I understand continuation by CPS-transform, if
the RI and/or the spec explains generators by absorbing them into
SML's delimited continuations, then I'd need try to understand
generators by CPS-transforming that portion of the RI's
implementation. Given a choice between understanding generators that
way vs. understanding them by CPS transforming the ES generator code,
the latter seems preferable. Again, this may just be a personal
idiosyncrasy. I do not yet have an opinion about how this should be
speced.
Thank you and Brendan for your explanations. They truly did help a lot.
How important is it that yield be an expression rather than a
statement? It seems like a sibling of return and throw, so I don't
think anyone coming to them afresh would be surprised if yield were a
statement.
--
Cheers,
--MarkM
_______________________________________________
Es-discuss mailing list
Es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
