d at domenic.me (2015-07-07T02:08:50.611Z)
On 24 June 2015 at 22:56, Jason Orendorff <jason.orendorff at gmail.com> wrote: > That is, λx.f(x) = f, a sort of beta-equivalence rule, Nitpick: this equivalence is eta, not beta. Unfortunately, I don't have anything more profound to add. But it's a good question. Maybe it's an indication that we should not add function.sent?
On 24 June 2015 at 22:56, Jason Orendorff <jason.orendorff at gmail.com> wrote: > Quick question about function.sent: > > As of ES6, there's this parallel between functions and generators: > > // how to wrap a function > // f2 is equivalent to f, if f doesn't use `this`. > function f(...) { ... } > function f2(...args) { return f(...args); } > > // how to wrap a generator > // g2 is equivalent to g, if g doesn't use `this`. > function* g(...) { ... } > function* g2(...args) { return yield* g(...args); } > > That is, λx.f(x) = f, a sort of beta-equivalence rule, Nitpick: this equivalence is eta, not beta. Unfortunately, I don't have anything more profound to add. But it's a good question. Maybe it's an indication that we should not add function.sent? /Andreas > and for > generators, you just need to add `yield*` to get an analogous rule. My > understanding is that this is one reason we have `yield*`. (Writing a > wrapping function/generator that also covers `this` is left as an easy > exercise.) > > Given function.sent, is there still a way to "wrap" a generator? > > -j > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > es-discuss at mozilla.org > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20150629/66637f05/attachment.html>