domenic at domenicdenicola.com (2014-01-22T19:21:21.454Z)
On Jan 15, 2014, at 8:32 AM, David Bruant wrote: > From what I understand, the spec says an error should be thrown because the generator is in "suspendedStart" state and value is not undefined (25.3.3.2 GeneratorResume step 7). Yes, that's what the spec, requires. This check was in the the original Generator proposal http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:generators#internal_methodsend It's an error because there is no mechanism for a generator to receive the argument passed by the first next.
On Jan 15, 2014, at 8:32 AM, David Bruant wrote: > Hi, > > Playing with the test cases of the regenerator project [1], I came across a case and was wondering what the intention of the spec is given that Firefox and Chrome recent implementations diverge. > Apologies for not reading all the previous discussions on this edge case. > > Test case: > ````js > function *gen(x) { > yield x; > } > > var g = gen('whatever'); > console.log(g.next(0)); > ```` > > Chrome & regenerator: > {value: "whatever", done: false} > > Firefox (Aurora 28): > TypeError: attempt to send 0 to newborn generator > > From what I understand, the spec says an error should be thrown because the generator is in "suspendedStart" state and value is not undefined (25.3.3.2 GeneratorResume step 7). Yes, that's what the spec, requires. This check was in the the original Generator proposal http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:generators#internal_methodsend It's an error because there is no mechanism for a generator to receive the argument passed by the first next. Allen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20140115/d0abf416/attachment.html>