domenic at domenicdenicola.com (2013-11-02T19:03:47.486Z)
On Oct 26, 2013, at 4:59 PM, Lucio Tato <luciotato at gmail.com> wrote:
> Rick: I understand. But it is always a trade-off.
>
> If the reason to introduce a new construct is because there may already be code that defines a function called `yield`, it seems to me as a bad trade-off. (advantages vs disadvantages)
>
> In your example...
>
> ```
> function yield() {... <- will raise a parsing error.
> ```
You can’t make yield a reserved word — which is what you’re asking for here. This isn’t a matter of whether or not you use generators, it’s a matter of whether other code in the same environment ever uses a property named yield. All of the options necessarily require breaking yield in existing code
> Anyway, there are other ways to solve that.
> You can put the asterisk in "yield" instead of the important "function". It's a lot less confusing.
>
> ```js
> function fibonacci() {
> let [prev, curr] = [0, 1];
> for (;;) {
> [prev, curr] = [curr, prev + curr];
> yield*(curr);
> ```
This already parses a (yield)*(curr)
Please stop trying to get rid of the *, there isn’t any other viable option, and this has been covered ad nauseum on es-discuss
On Oct 26, 2013, at 4:59 PM, Lucio Tato <luciotato at gmail.com> wrote: > Rick: I understand. But it is always a trade-off. > > If the reason to introduce a new construct is because there may already be code that defines a function called `yield`, it seems to me as a bad trade-off. (advantages vs disadvantages) > > In your example... > function yield() {... <- will raise a parsing error. > You can’t make yield a reserved word — which is what you’re asking for here. This isn’t a matter of whether or not you use generators, it’s a matter of whether other code in the same environment ever uses a property named yield. All of the options necessarily require breaking yield in existing code > Anyway, there are other ways to solve that. > You can put the asterisk in "yield" instead of the important "function". It's a lot less confusing. > > function fibonacci() { > let [prev, curr] = [0, 1]; > for (;;) { > [prev, curr] = [curr, prev + curr]; > yield*(curr); This already parses a (yield)*(curr) Please stop trying to get rid of the *, there isn’t any other viable option, and this has been covered ad nauseum on es-discuss —Oliver -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20131026/a2e98217/attachment.html>