I thought Id agreed to #1 and #2 but seems to have failed to communicate that to you, Alright about 2 of them, thanks :) On Sep 1, 2013 9:32 AM, "Brendan Eich" <bren...@mozilla.com> wrote:
> I hope you agree we are beating a dead horse, given my reasons #1 and 2 > require function* -- just checking. > > Yuichi Nishiwaki wrote: > >> 2013/9/1 Brendan Eich<bren...@mozilla.com>: >> >>> > Generators are a kind of factory function. When you call a generator, >>> you >>> > get an iterator with a bit of extra protocol (.throw as well as >>> .next). >>> > >>> > No big deal, lots of API contracts are implemented by functions, you >>> say -- >>> > why does this one deserve special head syntax. 'return' can be hard >>> to spot, >>> > just as 'yield' could be hidden, in a large body -- and return of a >>> > certain-shaped object as part of an API contract could be even harder >>> to >>> > discern. >>> >> >> Well, you don't answer the question, why do you think*your* APIs are >> truly better then others? >> > > I never wrote "better" about API. The issue is whether, ignoring reasons > 1&2, we help readers by flagging generator functions in their head syntax. > We do, TC39 has agreed, although some of us feel more strongly about this > than others (look for my next message, in reply to Allen, where I take your > side). > > So the issue is not "better API deserves syntax", and my point about > macros was meant to cite languages where the playing field between > standards bodies and language users who can write macros is leveled, > precisely because all syntax above the special forms is defined using > macros. > > In other words, built-in function* syntax (again ignoring prioritized > reasons 1&2) in JS is not a judgment about "better", only "necessary > because predefined". If we could use macros, we would -- and then so could > other people specifying APIs, developing specific factory function > contracts, etc. > > I hope this makes sense. > > In other words, why do you think there is a kind of difference between >> a normal function and the factory function, and think that the latter >> is*evil*? >> > > Never wrote "evil". Remember, I'm the champion of generators since 2006 in > ES4, when we prototyped them in SpiderMonkey. All without function*, BTW. > > I don't see the reason why you think the latter can be harder to find. >> > > (Stay tuned for my next message.) > > > In general, you have a point. Languages such as Scheme or Racket enable >>> > their users customize built-in syntax all the time to express >>> contracts >>> > better, even with static syntactic checking using macros. Even >>> macro-less >>> > languages may have decorators (CoffeeScript's syntax cleverly enables >>> > decorators "for free"). >>> >> >> I'm not talking about languages with macros. Almost all macro-less >> languages could decide to have syntactic decorators when newly >> introducing generators to themselves, but in fact they did not. >> > > True, and that is worth considering when doubting reason #3. I agree with > you there. > > /be >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
