Re: Fwd: .next('yo') in newborn generators
I think we can settle this now.
Lets allow an argument.
On Tuesday, February 25, 2014 6:27:26 AM, Brendan Eich
wrote:
> Andy Wingo wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I don't see the point of throwing an error when calling .next('foo') on
> > a newborn generator. We don't throw an error on .next('foo', 'bar'),
> > and unlike the case with most function calls there is no way to get the
> > 'bar' when resuming a generator, as you don't have an arguments object.
> >
> > I would punt on this issue entirely, and ideally remove the
> > "suspendedStart" state from the spec, renaming "suspendedYield" to
> > simply "suspended".
> >
> > Just MHO:)
>
> I agree, and I thought we agreed at the last TC39 meeting, but I was
> wrong or else it got lost.
>
> We'll settle it at the early April meeting.
>
> /be
> ___
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss@mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Re: Fwd: .next('yo') in newborn generators
Andy Wingo wrote:
Hi,
I don't see the point of throwing an error when calling .next('foo') on
a newborn generator. We don't throw an error on .next('foo', 'bar'),
and unlike the case with most function calls there is no way to get the
'bar' when resuming a generator, as you don't have an arguments object.
I would punt on this issue entirely, and ideally remove the
"suspendedStart" state from the spec, renaming "suspendedYield" to
simply "suspended".
Just MHO:)
I agree, and I thought we agreed at the last TC39 meeting, but I was
wrong or else it got lost.
We'll settle it at the early April meeting.
/be
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Re: Fwd: .next('yo') in newborn generators
Hi,
I don't see the point of throwing an error when calling .next('foo') on
a newborn generator. We don't throw an error on .next('foo', 'bar'),
and unlike the case with most function calls there is no way to get the
'bar' when resuming a generator, as you don't have an arguments object.
I would punt on this issue entirely, and ideally remove the
"suspendedStart" state from the spec, renaming "suspendedYield" to
simply "suspended".
Just MHO :)
Andy
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Re: Fwd: .next('yo') in newborn generators
Linking to some Twitter discussion related to this: https://twitter.com/bradleymeck/status/436371508005326850 On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 3:03 AM, David Bruant wrote: > Le 20/02/2014 06:39, Brendan Eich a écrit : > > Bradley Meck wrote: >> >>> >>> If I am reading the spec right (and I may not be), only the generator >>> should fail? The first call to gen().next(value) must have value be >>> undefined, and the others do not check. >>> >> >> I thought we agreed at the January 28 meeting to get rid of this error, >> but I can't find it in the notes. The January meeting notes have missed >> other conclusions, though. Allen? >> > https://github.com/rwaldron/tc39-notes/blob/master/es6/2014-01/jan-28.md# > concensusresolution > "BN: Have to go back and think more about this. Maybe a helper function > can be created." > It looks like no ferm decision has been made yet. > > David > ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Re: Fwd: .next('yo') in newborn generators
Le 20/02/2014 06:39, Brendan Eich a écrit : Bradley Meck wrote: If I am reading the spec right (and I may not be), only the generator should fail? The first call to gen().next(value) must have value be undefined, and the others do not check. I thought we agreed at the January 28 meeting to get rid of this error, but I can't find it in the notes. The January meeting notes have missed other conclusions, though. Allen? https://github.com/rwaldron/tc39-notes/blob/master/es6/2014-01/jan-28.md#concensusresolution "BN: Have to go back and think more about this. Maybe a helper function can be created." It looks like no ferm decision has been made yet. David ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Re: Fwd: .next('yo') in newborn generators
Bradley Meck wrote: If I am reading the spec right (and I may not be), only the generator should fail? The first call to gen().next(value) must have value be undefined, and the others do not check. I thought we agreed at the January 28 meeting to get rid of this error, but I can't find it in the notes. The January meeting notes have missed other conclusions, though. Allen? /be ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Fwd: .next('yo') in newborn generators
take for example a function that accepts an iterator:
```javascript
function test(name, iterable) {
try {
var iterator = iterable[Symbol.iterator]();
console.log(name,'with value for first next', iterator.next(1))
}
catch(e) {
console.error(name,'failed value for first next', e);
}
}
var arr = [1,2];
var set = new Set({first:true},{second:true});
var str = 'ab';
var gen=function*(){
yield 1;
yield 2;
};
test('array', arr);
test('set', set);
test('string', str);
test('generator', gen());
```
If I am reading the spec right (and I may not be), only the generator
should fail? The first call to gen().next(value) must have value be
undefined, and the others do not check.
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
