Kevin Smith wrote:
>
>
> function* gen(a, b, c) first {
> ...
> }
>
> Not bikeshedding, some found it ugly or too terse, many wondered
> about other future syntax vying to go after the parameter list.
> But the idea seems good.
>
>
> Cool. Although this solution isn't going to be *that* much better,
> because it will necessitate uncomfortable branching to deal with first
> iteration vs. subsequent iterations.
>
> On the other hand, something along the lines of:
>
> function *echo() input {
> while (true) yield input.value;
> }
>
> doesn't have the same problem.
So input is bound to the next() actual parameter value on each
resumption. That's not bad shed-coloring!
Andy, Dave: WDYT?
/be
domenic at domenicdenicola.com (2014-08-26T18:24:20.089Z)
So input is bound to the next() actual parameter value on each
resumption. That's not bad shed-coloring!
Andy, Dave: WDYT?
Kevin Smith wrote: > > > function* gen(a, b, c) first { > ... > } > > Not bikeshedding, some found it ugly or too terse, many wondered > about other future syntax vying to go after the parameter list. > But the idea seems good. > > > Cool. Although this solution isn't going to be *that* much better, > because it will necessitate uncomfortable branching to deal with first > iteration vs. subsequent iterations. > > On the other hand, something along the lines of: > > function *echo() input { > while (true) yield input.value; > } > > doesn't have the same problem. So input is bound to the next() actual parameter value on each resumption. That's not bad shed-coloring! Andy, Dave: WDYT? /be