On Jul 23, 2014, at 11:21 AM, Jeremy Martin wrote:
> Now that we have return() it isn't clear to me that we actually need throw()
>
> Am I understanding correctly that you're suggesting removing throw from
> Generator.prototype?
>
> If so, I'd like to suggest that, at a minimum, .throw() has been rather
> useful in the context of Node.js control-flow libraries [1] that surface
> "catchable" asynchronous errors.
>
> [1] https://github.com/jmar777/suspend#error-handling
>
I see, your example is using generators like the first perspective I described
in my response to Brendan. The generator is essentially in control and sees
the 'yield' as a call to an operation for which it is prepared to handle
exceptions. It's logically splicing together two call chains. Essentially using
a generator as a co-routine.
Ok, I buy that throw() is useful for that use case. I still think it is a
different from the looping control structure case where the loop is in control
rather than the iterator.
Allen
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
