Brendan Eich (2013-09-06T16:09:59.000Z)
domenic at domenicdenicola.com (2013-09-17T19:59:15.269Z)
David Bruant <mailto:bruant.d at gmail.com> September 6, 2013 8:59 AM > There is also a non-generator desugaring (exercise left to the reader). There's always a lambda encoding. So what? First, ES6 doesn't use desugaring to specify its semantics. Second, the closure or closures (plural, for nested for heads) cases are distinct in real implementations from a single generator with blocks. See message sent two back by me. > I don't really care for the name, but I agree with Domenic that there > is no need for the expression to create a generator. > The presence of `.next` and `.throw` will be unnecessarily confusing to > authors. Now you are disagreeing with Domenic on .next. How pray tell would you have an iterator without .next? If you mean that a useless argument can be passed into .next, that is allowed with any iterator too. As for .throw being confusing, I doubt it. Throwing into something that can't catch is like using throw (the keyword) directly. Users can write all sorts of direct and indirect throws already.