April 10 2014 Meeting Notes
Mark S. Miller
erights at google.com
Sat Apr 26 12:39:59 PDT 2014
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 8:48 AM, Rick Waldron <waldron.rick at gmail.com>wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 11:16 AM, Mark S. Miller <erights at google.com>wrote:
>> Hi Domenic, that's a long thread. Could you summarize, or point at a very
>> small number of messages on that thread that get the point across? Thanks.
> This is the specific post we discussed at the last meeting:
> (It may not be the one Domenic is referring to, but it's relevant to this
Ok, the point of that post still seems well summarized by the example at
for_each_n(x => console.log(x), iter, 10); // first 10
> for_each_n(x => console.log(x), iter, 10); // next 10
And the points
> In summary my problems with close() are these:
> 1. It attempts to provide a reliable finally for unlimited-extent
> activations, when we can't do that.
> 2. It complicates the mental model of what happens when you yield.
> 3. It makes common sugar like for-of inappropriate for some uses of
> generator objects.
IIRC, on wednesday at tc39, when Brendan presented this, I found it
compelling. On thurs (when Brendan was absent) when this came up again, I
flipped because of the following argument:
Given that for/of comes to be understood to use up its iterable's iterator,
when the iterable is the iterator and you desire not to use it up, don't
use for/of. Use for(;;) instead, which is easy enough and makes it more
explicit what you are and are not doing in the iteration.
Regarding the points:
#1 yes, we cannot provide one that's reliable, so let's not claim that it
#2 yes it does. I acknowledge that this is a genuine cost.
#3 for those rare cases where it is inappropriate, like this example,
better not to use a for/of anyway to make the unusualness of this code's
purpose more explicit.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the es-discuss