Salvador de la Puente González wrote:
>
> Yep. This was already discussed in the topic I mentioned before. Just 
> to remember, the real problem with tee() is that the generators are 
> not actually independent as you can not .send() different information 
> to each one to make them diverge.
>

Why not? The generator would switch on sent value, in a loop.

We're deep in the Turing tarpit, where anything can be coded on top of 
generators. Arguing for just a bit more kernel semantics needs 
justification, like the cost to library code is too high (by some 
concrete measure), or the cliché is so popular it's time to absorb into 
a future JS standard.

/be
>
> So producing a real clone of the generator is not possible from "above 
> the standard".
>
> Hope it helps.
>

Salvador de la Puente González wrote:

> Yep. This was already discussed in the topic I mentioned before. Just 
> to remember, the real problem with tee() is that the generators are 
> not actually independent as you can not .send() different information 
> to each one to make them diverge.
>

Why not? The generator would switch on sent value, in a loop.

We're deep in the Turing tarpit, where anything can be coded on top of 
generators. Arguing for just a bit more kernel semantics needs 
justification, like the cost to library code is too high (by some 
concrete measure), or the cliché is so popular it's time to absorb into 
a future JS standard.