Re: [heycam/webidl] Extending async iterators to support streams (#800)

> However, this was not implemented anywhere yet, so maybe we should instead have Web IDL generate a values() method. That is my current thinking.

Agreed (unless we find someone has implemented `getIterator()` already).

> My initial leaning is to generate them (and in this way), as otherwise they're the odd iterator out. If we do, I'd much prefer to follow the array/value sync iterator precedent and have the keys be 0-based indices, instead of having them just be aliases of the values.

Streams are not indexable, so returning indices would not be useful for anything.

https://heycam.github.io/webidl/#idl-iterable says "A value iterator must only be declared on an interface that supports indexed properties." But a stream is not that kind of thing at all: for one thing, it does not (and cannot) have a `length` property.

My conclusion is that we should *not* support `keys()` and `entries()` because they imply semantics which streams do not have.

> Should we generate a forEach() function? 

I would argue "no", since we want to encourage the `for await ... of` syntax instead.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/heycam/webidl/issues/800#issuecomment-534454443