Re: [RFC] Generators

2012/8/13 Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com>: > * After first yield: Recoverable fatal error > > So this would allow you to call ->rewind() after creating the > generator, but will throw an error if you try to do so later. Hm. I think this looks like a workaround over conceptual problems. The (in my eyes) "right" behavior would be to call a new instance of the generator if you rewind and destroy the current (= replace current generator with a new). I would prefer to say "this is not an real iterator"; if you want to make it an real iterator, then implement it yourself. Otherwise it's like "Ok, we have here a new type of function which looks enough like a function to be a function, which implements an iterator which looks enough like an iterator to be an iterator.". :) I also recommend to say, that generators aren't a good idea if used on resources, which can't be shared. For example: the file-read-example doesn't lock. To implement locking new functions or a new class is needed - hiding complexity. Generators are (in my opinion) really nice for things which are already in the memory. Not more or less. -- Alex Aulbach