3 ms·

Why didn't they simplify it (and make it more like current JS) by leaving out the .send() method? Wouldn't this make more sense? var tester = test; test

• kilovoltaire 14y ago
  I assume you mean: var tester = test(); tester(); And yeah I agree, straight functions seem way nicer, which is what the coroutine() wrapper in the writeup ends up accomplishing. Javascript 1.7 copied the generator/coroutine objects straight from Python, and it's a weird fit... One thing that you can't do with just a function is have the .close() method, which may or may not be a fundamental issue.
  • firefoxman1 14y ago
    I mean you could refer to the function by its name, and then run it with () when ready.
    • kilovoltaire 14y ago
      Oh, so you really did mean `var tester = test;` The reason that might be less good than the current approaches is that you may want to spawn multiple 'instances' of the generator/coroutine. If I'm understanding your proposal correctly, you'd only ever be able to run it once.
      • firefoxman1 14y ago
        Oh, that's a good point. Didn't consider that.