'function *' is not mandatory

Brendan Eich brendan at mozilla.com
Sun Sep 1 14:09:47 PDT 2013

>         but why `function *` (which looks like a pointer to a function
>         more than a generator
>     This is JS, please take off your C/C++ hat :-P.
> Sure, but let's not ignore that this syntax already has a special 
> meaning in the language family JS syntax is heavily based on.

What syntax? 'function' is not a reserved word in C or C++. It is in 
AWK, which is arguably in the C family. Sorry, but JS syntax is not 
bound to evolve only in ways that are disjoint from keyword-free 
reinterpretation as C or C++.

> Like I asked, why does it have to be the star?

Yes, it has to be star. This is not the hill you want to die on, 
metaphorically speaking. TC39 reached consensus based on a championed 
proposal. Re-opening this minor design decision needs strong 
justification. Trying to avoid looking like C or C++ at a glance is not 
strong justification.

> Why not tilde? Or plus? Why take something that already has a 
> completely different meaning in other languages?

Rust uses tilde for unique references / linear types. Someone has to pay.
>     ) instead of something clearer, e.g. `generator myGenerator ()
>     {}`? I see the obvious ASI hazard, but this can be mitigated by
>     not allowing unnamed generators, e.g. `{ myGenerator: generator _
>     () {} } `,
>     This doesn't work in general, it is backward-incompatible. If
>     someone bound or assigned to generator in-scope, your proposed
>     change could break compatibility -- or else require parsing to
>     depend on name binding.
>     foo = generator
>     bar()
>     {}
>     Remember, if there wasn't an error, ASI doesn't apply. Trying to
>     "patch" this bad theory with a [no LineTerminator here]
>     restriction to the right of 'generator' does not work in the
>     grammar without reserving 'generator' -- we can't put that
>     restriction to the right of every Identifier on the right of every
>     expression production.
> Can you elaborate on this, please, I'm confused? Why can't we restrict 
> the syntax?

You have to propose exactly *how* you want to "restrict the syntax".

As I just wrote, we cannot restrict all productions with Identifier in 
their right-hand sides to forbid line terminators after. Any restriction 
would be word-sensitive and require 'generator' to be reserved. Then the 
problem becomes backward incompatibility of the kind I showed. To avoid 
breaking such code (and other cases not yet thought of) requires a 
grammatical restriction of some sort. What sort?

> Unrestricted syntax is why we are having this discussion in the first 
> place. What's the negative effect of reserving 'generator'? In my 
> opinion the parser saying "ohmigod"

Please stop informal rambling and specify exactly what you mean.


More information about the es-discuss mailing list