On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 8:47 AM, Brendan Eich <bren...@mozilla.com> wrote:
> Jussi Kalliokoski > <mailto:jussi.kalliokoski@**gmail.com<jussi.kallioko...@gmail.com> >> > >> September 1, 2013 10:03 PM >> > > No, 'function' is not a reserved word in C/++, who said it was? I'm saying >> `function *myGenerator` looks a lot like `<type> *<identifier>`. >> > > We're going in circles: I'm saying (I said) take off the C/C++ hat. > > JS's future syntax is *not* under a > do-not-mimic-C/C++-ignoring-**keywords-and-semantics > constraint. Of course not. That doesn't mean we should ignore what other common languages do with the same syntax. And at best, with my C/++ skills, it's more like a kippah than a real hat. ^^ > 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. >> >> >> I'm aware of the decision, the rationale behind it is what I'm looking >> for. Or was star picked just because? >> > > No, think about yield* for delegation. We want consonance, reuse of > "generator sigil". > Googling generator sigil yields online magic symbol generators... Not what I was looking for, I think. :) Is the star after yield any less arbitrary? > Your comments on the grammar show continued informality and lack of > familiarity with parsing theory in general, and the ECMA-262 grammar > formalisms in particular. They probably do since I am not familiar with parsing theory in general, but I probably represent a large portion of the community with that disability (which I hope to repair at some point). I wouldn't ask the questions if I knew the answers, now would I. To me this seems just like arbitrary limitations where it's somehow impossible to add an if statement in the parser. We don't want to split 'generator' out from Identifier, and special-case > its syntax in PrimaryExpressions (which must be covered by a cover-grammar > that also covers destructuring). We don't have a convenient formalism for > such special-casing. > All right, so it would be a much larger effort to specify it? > What's more, special-casing 'generator' is more than a spec and > implementation front-end complexity tax. It makes a longer and more complex > path dependency for any future syntax extension nearby (e.g., Mark's > function! for async function syntax, proposed for ES7 -- controversial, and > perhaps ^ is better than !, but in any case this is easy to do given > function*, not so easy to do given generator|function syntax). Special > cases are a smell. > I agree with special cases being a smell, but hacks are a smell too (hacks lead to the need for special cases), and `function *` is definitely a hack around the limitations we have (arbitrary or not). So two smelly things, the difference is that only one of them conveys the intended meaning at first glance, but only one has been agreed upon > Finally, no way will we lumber everyone writing generators with a > double-keyword 'generator function'. That's too much on several dimensions. > TC39's consensus for function* is worth keeping, over against your > inability to take off the C/C++ hat. Of this I am certain, even if the * is > somewhat arbitrary (but see above about yield*). > I also realized a bit after sending the message that it wouldn't even avoid the [no LineTerminator here] problem, sorry. >,< > So at this point, to be frank and with the best intentions, I think you're > being a sore loser ;-). It's no fun to lose, I've had to learn to cope over > the years big-time (JS in its rushed glory; ES4; etc.). This '*' is very > small potatoes, as the saying goes. > Don't worry, I know quite well how to lose, in fact I consider losing as one of the things I'm best at. But when I'm proven wrong, I want to understand why I was wrong. Where you are now seeing a sore loss, I see a triumph in learning new things. ;) However I see this is a sunk cost and beating a dead horse, so I rest my case (that's not to say I wouldn't appreciate my questions getting answered). Sorry for making you repeat yourself. Cheers, Jussi > /be >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
