Hi Mark,
Thanks a lot for the pointers and for taking the time to debrief me on the
proposal. I had stumbled on the concurrency paper a while ago but never
took the time to read it thoroughly. I surely will!
It is good to see that the problem is being attacked from a generic angle
with an eye on
ery similar to a function call to me. If we do this, the predecence
>>> becomes intuitive again:
>>>
>>>var x = yield(a) + yield(b);
>>>yield(a+b);
>>>
>>> I think there was a proposal to allow parenthesis-free function call at
>&g
"yield" as a function. Indeed,
> it calls another code, which can return you a value. That looks very similar
> to a function call to me. If we do this, the predecence becomes intuitive
> again:
>
>var x = yield(a) + yield(b);
> yield(a+b);
>
> I t
a normal statement again. In the mean time we can just use parentheses,
> that's not a huge issue and it helps clarity.
>
>
>
> But maybe this is too late to change ES6, it's just an idea I had while
> reading this thread, not a strong call for change.
>
>
>
&g
There is an issue when the argument of an
intended parenthesis-free function call
happens to begin with a parenthesis.
Just like there are issues if you want to return an object literal from a
lambda in JS, you've to use parentheses around it. Not a big deal.
Anyway, I'm not saying we should
Le 15 juin 2013 à 10:18, François REMY a écrit :
> I'm maybe biased, but I would love to consider "yield" as a function. Indeed,
> it calls another code, which can return you a value. That looks very similar
> to a function call to me. If we do this, the predecence becomes intuitive
> again:
o change ES6, it's just an idea I had while
> reading this thread, not a strong call for change.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -Message d'origine- From: Brendan Eich
> Sent: Saturday, June 15, 2013 6:17 AM
> To: Dean Tribble
> Cc: Bruno Jouhier ; es-discuss@mozilla.org
> Subject:
convresation and got a nice summary, pasted here:
-- Forwarded message --
From: *Mads Torgersen* <mailto:mads.torger...@microsoft.com>>
Date: Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 2:11 PM
Subject: RE: Precedence of yield operator
To: Dean Tribble mailto:trib...@e-dean.com>>
I’m n
:
-- Forwarded message --
From: *Mads Torgersen* <mailto:mads.torger...@microsoft.com>>
Date: Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 2:11 PM
Subject: RE: Precedence of yield operator
To: Dean Tribble mailto:trib...@e-dean.com>>
I’m not on the mailing list. Feel free to forward to it.
> I don’t know if a similar thing is possible in EcmaScript. But I believe
> that a low-precedence yield as a substitute for a high-precedence await is
> problematic: you never want “yield a + yield b” to mean “yield (a + (yield
> b))”: the things you await – Task, Promises, Futures, whatever you c
This is a familiar discussion from C#. I forwarded it to the mediator of
that convresation and got a nice summary, pasted here:
-- Forwarded message --
From: Mads Torgersen
Date: Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 2:11 PM
Subject: RE: Precedence of yield operator
To: Dean Tribble
I’m not on
The current precedence looks natural to me for a yield but less when yield
is used as an await keyword. That's why I proposed to handle it with a
different keyword rather than by changing yield's precedence. Await would
have been a good candidate but it is not reserved.
Anyway, I don't want to ma
Bruno Jouhier wrote:
While playing with my little async/await library, I noticed that I was
often forced to parenthesize yield expressions as (yield exp) because
of the low precedence of the yield operator. Typical patterns are:
var foo = (yield a()) + (yield b()) + (yield c());
That's actua
On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 5:33 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 11:21 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>> Using generators for async is a clever hack, but it's just a hack. A
>> proper solution will need a new keyword anyway (most languages seem to
>> use "await" or something simi
On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 11:21 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> Using generators for async is a clever hack, but it's just a hack. A
> proper solution will need a new keyword anyway (most languages seem to
> use "await" or something similar), which can get the better
> precedence.
This is just not tru
On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 5:12 PM, Bruno Jouhier wrote:
> While playing with my little async/await library, I noticed that I was often
> forced to parenthesize yield expressions as (yield exp) because of the low
> precedence of the yield operator. Typical patterns are:
>
> var foo = (yield a()) + (y
While playing with my little async/await library, I noticed that I was
often forced to parenthesize yield expressions as (yield exp) because of
the low precedence of the yield operator. Typical patterns are:
var foo = (yield a()) + (yield b()) + (yield c());
if ((yield a()) && cond2 ...) ...
Look
17 matches
Mail list logo
