On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 12:36 PM, Brendan Eich <brendan at mozilla.com> wrote:
> Jason Orendorff wrote:
>
>> On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 11:42 PM, Mike Stay <metaweta at gmail.com
>> <mailto:metaweta at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     In Scala, this is desugared into
>>       expr1.flatMap(x =>
>>         expr2(x).flatMap(y => ...
>>           exprN(x, y, ...).map(z =>
>>             result(x, y, ..., z)
>>           )
>>         )
>>       )
>>
>>
>> Currently comprehensions use the same protocol as for-of statements,
>> namely iterators. I think we definitely want them to use the same protocol.
>>
>> .map() is appealing, but to work with for-of statements, it would have to
>> support break, continue, and early return, either using exceptions (like
>> Scala's Breaks) or something new. Part of the appeal of the iterator
>> protocol is that it doesn't complicate break/continue/return.
>
>
> Agreed. JS ain't Scala.

I wouldn't want it to be!  And I agree that it makes sense for the
array comprehensions to match the for-of semantics.

> Note for Mike Stay, in case it helps a bit (just syntax): we agreed to use
> LTR order, so:
>
> [for (x of expr1) for (y of expr2(x)) result(x, y)]
>
>
> to shorten your example a bit.

OK, thanks.  I suppose that with the arrow-functions, the boilerplate
load drops tremendously.  Is the ES6 spec too far along to introduce
some other construct that would desugar to the above, or is there
still time to create a proposal?

>> Separately, for the list: are arrow-functions lexically transparent to
>> super and arguments? I hope so! For this kind of desugaring, if nothing
>> else.
>
>
> 'super' like 'this' is lexical -- the outer function's same-named keyword
> meaning.
>
> 'arguments' per
> http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:arrow_function_syntax is an
> error. Perhaps we should change this to match the keywords. Allen?
>
> /be
>



-- 
Mike Stay - metaweta at gmail.com
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~mike
http://reperiendi.wordpress.com

On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 12:36 PM, Brendan Eich <brendan at mozilla.com> wrote:

> Agreed. JS ain't Scala.

I wouldn't want it to be!  And I agree that it makes sense for the
array comprehensions to match the for-of semantics.

> Note for Mike Stay, in case it helps a bit (just syntax): we agreed to use LTR order, so:
>
> ```js
> [for (x of expr1) for (y of expr2(x)) result(x, y)]
> ```
>
>
> to shorten your example a bit.

OK, thanks.  I suppose that with the arrow-functions, the boilerplate
load drops tremendously.  Is the ES6 spec too far along to introduce
some other construct that would desugar to the above, or is there
still time to create a proposal?