Kevin Gibbons
Kevin Gibbons
> gotcha - but if we removed the `GetIterator` call, then you wouldn't be able to return an array, right? Right. You'd have to return `[0, 1, 2].values()`.
> currently, would i have to wrap it in [] to be able to flatMap over it and yield a full string? Yes. This is arguably a reason to _prefer_...
> If you `return` an async iterator returned by `.map(fn)` for example, is that passed through to the original iterator immediately, or only if it's currently yielding? As currently specified,...
@domenic The proposed change here wouldn't mean that iterator-helper-derived async iterators had this functionality when other iterators did not. `originalAsyncGenerator(...args).map(x => x)` wouldn't really do anything different either way, because...
That said, I think we're currently leaning towards not making any changes to the current spec, for the sake of staying consistent with async generators. Even though that means a...
If we allow other primitives it's likely to run into weird timing issues. It's easy to image a predicate function which returns either an object or `null`, whcih would have...
It's not obvious to me how failing to await `forEach` would cause bugs in the specific case that the function passed to `forEach` returned `undefined`. We'd have to wait when...
Ehhh, defining it precisely is tricky - what does it mean to "have a method", precisely, in a world with proxies?
This seems to me to be worse; I'd mildly prefer to leave as-is.
I find the table easier to read /shrug