Re: [RFC] Generators

On 08/18/2012 10:12 AM, lester@lsces.co.uk wrote: > Since this is yet another area where 'one does not have to use it if one > does not want to' ... FLAGGING to the other users that a function is a > 'special one' rather than just a normal function with a generator function > seems to me just a necessity? HAVING to work through a functions code > simply to see if it contains a 'yeild' so as to understand that it's not > going to give a normal return seems insane? Alright the function can be > properly documented with a docblock, but if it isn't ... I don't see how that is any different from having to look through a function to see if it is a void function or if it returns something, and if so, what it returns. Or checking to see if it outputs something. PHP is very dynamic. A function can be both void and non-void at the same time. It can return mixed types and do pretty much anything you can imagine. I don't really see what the generator keyword achieves. What happens if I have a function that I mark as a generator but then I don't put a yield in it? Is that a compile-level error? That might work, but then what if I put a yield in it but the logic of the function never gets to it: if(cond) return [1,2,3]; else if(other_cond) yield $val; else return; There is no way to know at compile-time whether the yield will ever be reached. To me it seems odd to have a generator keyword that cannot be enforced and doesn't mean anything other than stating a developer's intent. Whether the developer actually carried through and implemented the intended generator can only be verified by reading the code. This smells much more like a source comment to me. If we were going to go with a generator keyword, then I think the feature needs to be completely re-thought. I would suggest dropping the yield keyword entirely and having return be equivalent to a yield if the function is marked as a generator. Then the keyword actually does something. -Rasmus