domenic at domenicdenicola.com (2014-06-12T22:35:32.122Z)
Ah, getting context from just the slide deck clearly puts me at a
disadvantage. Am I to understand that the three slides in a row that
have a "for()...for()...if()...{x, y}" syntax are the proposed syntax?
On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 3:41 PM, Brendan Eich <brendan at mozilla.org> wrote: > Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >> >> On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 1:57 PM, Andy Wingo<wingo at igalia.com> wrote: >>> >>> > 1: Essential differences >>> > == >>> > >>> > Array comprehensions are eager. Generator comprehensions are lazy. >>> > Array comprehensions desugar into a do expression à la ES7. Generator >>> > comprehensions desugar into an IIGFE (immediately-invoked generator >>> > function expression) -- sorta, anyway. (Generator function desugaring >>> > is not exact due to arguments/this/etc scoping and properties on the >>> > generator function.) >>> > >>> > This is an essential difference in the use of the iterator, and so it >>> > makes sense to distinguish these at the source level as well. >> >> I'm not sure I understand. Is this an argument against Python's use >> of similar syntaxes as well? That is, do you also disagree with >> Python's high similarity between array comprehensions and generator >> comprehensions? > > No, the problem is there's no way to do a generator comprehension in (what > we saw of) the new syntax. Ah, getting context from just the slide deck clearly puts me at a disadvantage. Am I to understand that the three slides in a row that have a "for()...for()...if()...{x, y}" syntax are the proposed syntax? ~TJ