HE Shi-Jun

`function *give123() { yield 1; yield 2; yield 3; }` obviously not intend to be double-ended, but it's easy to upgrade many generators to double-ended because many abstraction behind a...

@conartist6 > why would I want to have to to write the body of my codepoints generator twice? Again I'd just want to write string.reversed().codepoints(). Actually with deiter, u don't...

> What would a map implementation look like? You don't need to throw error, because it just work (if keep passing param semantic). See https://github.com/tc39/proposal-deiter/issues/1#issuecomment-694811359 . > All the existing...

As the table of https://github.com/tc39/proposal-deiter/issues/1#issuecomment-1019488928 , it's clear that we need to mark the "type" of a iterators/generators: - double-ended (can deal with both `next()` and `next('back')`) - front-only (all...

@conartist6 > I don't think `noneEndedIterator` sounds like a good idea. How were you thinking that might happen? No it's not a real exist `noneEndedIterator`, we don't need that, I...

> The additional protocols I am imagining all stem from the idea of reducing overhead where it is not needed in order to enable processing iterables of characters. Characters are...

The `function.sent` proposal (specced by @allenwb) use `LastYieldValue` to denote that. I suppose `Yield` abstract operation could update `LastYieldValue`, and then u just need `?Yield(_value_)` and when need use `_next_`...

One problem is how the biggest `limit` we support ? Consider the largest array length is 2**32-1, it seems this should be the max, or could it be even a...

If I understand correctly, you are proposing: - Replace current `::foo.method` with `foo::method` - Replace current `::foo[bar]` with `foo::[bar]` - Replace current `foo::bar` with `foo::{bar}` - Replace current `foo::bar(...args)` with...

@Fenzland I agree with you that leading `::` has some issues. I'd rather drop it or split it to a separate proposal. This proposal actually have three parts: - Method...