How would shallow generators compose with lambda?

[Brendan Eich]

On May 14, 2009, at 1:47 PM, Waldemar Horwat wrote:

> This whole thing is another nail in the coffin of generators.   
> Generators are the root of the troublesome longjmp's which don't  
> play well with others.

Are you talking about generators, or lambdas?

Generators have no longjmps at all. The only issue here is due to the  
lambda following Tennent's Correspondence Principle.

/be

>
>
>   Waldemar
>
>
> Brendan Eich wrote:
>> To make this clear with an example (thanks to Jason for some IRC  
>> interaction):
>> function gen(arg) {
>>    foo((lambda (x) yield x), arg);
>> }
>> function foo(callback, arg) {
>>    try {
>>        callback(arg);
>>    } finally {
>>        alert("I'm ok!");
>>    }
>> }
>> g = gen(42);
>> print(g.next()); // tell the user the meaning of life, etc.
>> g = null;
>> gc();
>> I think finally is the only issue, since how else can you tell that  
>> foo didn't see a return or exception from the callback?
>> It's true that this finally-may-not-run wrinkle is confined to  
>> generator functions in JS1.7, i.e., without lambda.
>> But I think any function that invokes an arbitrary other function  
>> in a try has to fear that its finally might not run. There could be  
>> a hard stop due to iloop prevention, or an uncatchable security  
>> fail-stop error.
>> FWIW I'm cool on lambda and return to label atm.
>> /be