Hi Allen, does that mean we agreed to the equivalent of Arv's #1? If so,
great!


On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 8:25 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock <allen at wirfs-brock.com>
wrote:

> This sounds to me like it just need to be reported as a bug  There have
> been previous bugs that have identified places where library methods
> iterated in a manner that precluded implementing them via for-of. For
> example https://bugs.ecmascript.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2083 Those bugs were
> all fixed.
>
> Of course it would be nice, if such a bug report actually identified the
> places where this is an issue.  It would be even better if the bug report
> include the suggest changes to the current algorithms.
>
> Allen
>
>
> On Sep 10, 2014, at 7:54 AM, Andreas Rossberg wrote:
>
> On 10 September 2014 16:52, Mark S. Miller <erights at google.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 7:45 AM, Erik Arvidsson <erik.arvidsson at gmail.com>
>
> wrote:
>
> I see two options here.
>
>
> 1. Add IteratorClose to all places in the spec where we use iterators.
>
>
> Why was #1 rejected? I just don't remember.
>
>
> I don't remember either, but one counter argument will be that it
> could be a performance hit. But if we are not willing to take this hit
> in our "own" functions then we should better not have this feature at
> all.
>
> /Andreas
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>
>
>


-- 
    Cheers,
    --MarkM
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20140910/4ca24b65/attachment.html>

does that mean we agreed to the equivalent of Arv's #1? If so,
great!