domenic at domenicdenicola.com (2013-09-17T19:57:10.433Z)
Brandon Benvie wrote:
> I don't think you're missing anything. They seem to be more accurately
> described as Iterator Expressions than Generator Expressions. It might
> be interesting if you could use yield inside them, which would then
> make sending a value in useful. But without that they don't expose any
> generator interface externally.
They could be called something else, for sure. The name works because
they're sugar for a generator function immeidately invoked:
```js
(for (x of [1,2, 3]) x * x)
```
is
```js
(function*() { for (let x of [1,2, 3]) yield x * x; })()
```
The name also may have Python roots that predate Python 2.5's more complete (send as well as next; throw; close) generator interface.
I think we should keep the name, because it's more precise. Iterator expression could be taken to mean other things a bit too easily.
Brandon Benvie wrote: > I don't think you're missing anything. They seem to be more accurately > described as Iterator Expressions than Generator Expressions. It might > be interesting if you could use yield inside them, which would then > make sending a value in useful. But without that they don't expose any > generator interface externally. They could be called something else, for sure. The name works because they're sugar for a generator function immeidately invoked: (for (x of [1,2, 3]) x * x) is (function*() { for (let x of [1,2, 3]) yield x * x; })() The name also may have Python roots that predate Python 2.5's more complete (send as well as next; throw; close) generator interface. I think we should keep the name, because it's more precise. Iterator expression could be taken to mean other things a bit too easily. /be