Andy Wingo wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I don't see the point of throwing an error when calling .next('foo') on
> a newborn generator. We don't throw an error on .next('foo', 'bar'),
> and unlike the case with most function calls there is no way to get the
> 'bar' when resuming a generator, as you don't have an arguments object.
>
> I would punt on this issue entirely, and ideally remove the
> "suspendedStart" state from the spec, renaming "suspendedYield" to
> simply "suspended".
>
> Just MHO:)
I agree, and I thought we agreed at the last TC39 meeting, but I was
wrong or else it got lost.
We'll settle it at the early April meeting.
/be
domenic at domenicdenicola.com (2014-03-02T22:34:54.875Z)
I agree, and I thought we agreed at the last TC39 meeting, but I was
wrong or else it got lost.
We'll settle it at the early April meeting.
Andy Wingo wrote: > Hi, > > I don't see the point of throwing an error when calling .next('foo') on > a newborn generator. We don't throw an error on .next('foo', 'bar'), > and unlike the case with most function calls there is no way to get the > 'bar' when resuming a generator, as you don't have an arguments object. > > I would punt on this issue entirely, and ideally remove the > "suspendedStart" state from the spec, renaming "suspendedYield" to > simply "suspended". > > Just MHO:) I agree, and I thought we agreed at the last TC39 meeting, but I was wrong or else it got lost. We'll settle it at the early April meeting. /be