How would shallow generators compose with lambda?

[Brendan Eich]

On May 15, 2009, at 2:34 AM, kevin curtis wrote:

> If a function is used instead of a lambda, do the the same - syntactic
> or semantic - problems arise?

No, because yield in a function makes it a generator, whereas in the  
lambda proposal extended to treat yield as return/break/continue are  
treated (per Tennent's Correspondence Principle), yield does not make  
the lamda some kind of generator-lambda -- instead it yields the  
nearest enclosing function (if active; else throw).


> foo((lambda (x) yield x), arg);
>
> to:
>
> foo((function (x) yield x), arg);  // js1.7 expression closure syntax
> OR
> foo(function (x) { yield x}, arg);

That passes a generator function to foo. If foo calls it, foo gets a  
generator-iterator, which if used in a for-in construct, or explicitly  
iterated via .next/send/throw, yields x once then throws StopIteration.

/be