but why `function *` (which looks like a pointer to a function
more than a generator
This is JS, please take off your C/C++ hat :-P.
Sure, but let's not ignore that this syntax already has a special
meaning in the language family JS syntax is heavily based on.
What syntax? 'function' is not a reserved word in C or C++. It is in
AWK, which is arguably in the C family. Sorry, but JS syntax is not
bound to evolve only in ways that are disjoint from keyword-free
reinterpretation as C or C++.
Like I asked, why does it have to be the star?
Yes, it has to be star. This is not the hill you want to die on,
metaphorically speaking. TC39 reached consensus based on a championed
proposal. Re-opening this minor design decision needs strong
justification. Trying to avoid looking like C or C++ at a glance is not
strong justification.
Why not tilde? Or plus? Why take something that already has a
completely different meaning in other languages?
Rust uses tilde for unique references / linear types. Someone has to pay.
) instead of something clearer, e.g. `generator myGenerator ()
{}`? I see the obvious ASI hazard, but this can be mitigated by
not allowing unnamed generators, e.g. `{ myGenerator: generator _
() {} } `,
This doesn't work in general, it is backward-incompatible. If
someone bound or assigned to generator in-scope, your proposed
change could break compatibility -- or else require parsing to
depend on name binding.
foo = generator
bar()
{}
Remember, if there wasn't an error, ASI doesn't apply. Trying to
"patch" this bad theory with a [no LineTerminator here]
restriction to the right of 'generator' does not work in the
grammar without reserving 'generator' -- we can't put that
restriction to the right of every Identifier on the right of every
expression production.
Can you elaborate on this, please, I'm confused? Why can't we restrict
the syntax?
You have to propose exactly *how* you want to "restrict the syntax".
As I just wrote, we cannot restrict all productions with Identifier in
their right-hand sides to forbid line terminators after. Any restriction
would be word-sensitive and require 'generator' to be reserved. Then the
problem becomes backward incompatibility of the kind I showed. To avoid
breaking such code (and other cases not yet thought of) requires a
grammatical restriction of some sort. What sort?
Unrestricted syntax is why we are having this discussion in the first
place. What's the negative effect of reserving 'generator'? In my
opinion the parser saying "ohmigod"
Please stop informal rambling and specify exactly what you mean.
/be
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
