Introduction, comprehensions beyond arrays
metaweta at gmail.com
Fri May 10 11:50:07 PDT 2013
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 12:36 PM, Brendan Eich <brendan at mozilla.com> wrote:
> Jason Orendorff wrote:
>> On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 11:42 PM, Mike Stay <metaweta at gmail.com
>> <mailto:metaweta at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> In Scala, this is desugared into
>> expr1.flatMap(x =>
>> expr2(x).flatMap(y => ...
>> exprN(x, y, ...).map(z =>
>> result(x, y, ..., z)
>> Currently comprehensions use the same protocol as for-of statements,
>> namely iterators. I think we definitely want them to use the same protocol.
>> .map() is appealing, but to work with for-of statements, it would have to
>> support break, continue, and early return, either using exceptions (like
>> Scala's Breaks) or something new. Part of the appeal of the iterator
>> protocol is that it doesn't complicate break/continue/return.
> Agreed. JS ain't Scala.
I wouldn't want it to be! And I agree that it makes sense for the
array comprehensions to match the for-of semantics.
> Note for Mike Stay, in case it helps a bit (just syntax): we agreed to use
> LTR order, so:
> [for (x of expr1) for (y of expr2(x)) result(x, y)]
> to shorten your example a bit.
OK, thanks. I suppose that with the arrow-functions, the boilerplate
load drops tremendously. Is the ES6 spec too far along to introduce
some other construct that would desugar to the above, or is there
still time to create a proposal?
>> Separately, for the list: are arrow-functions lexically transparent to
>> super and arguments? I hope so! For this kind of desugaring, if nothing
> 'super' like 'this' is lexical -- the outer function's same-named keyword
> 'arguments' per
> http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:arrow_function_syntax is an
> error. Perhaps we should change this to match the keywords. Allen?
Mike Stay - metaweta at gmail.com
More information about the es-discuss