Re: [RFC] Generators

On 18/08/12 13:21, Derick Rethans wrote:

On Sat, 11 Aug 2012, Nikita Popov wrote:

Hi internals! I think there already was a lot of discussion on the generators, so it's time to move to the next step. I'd like to vote on the feature in two weeks, so this the "announce[ment] on internals@, by the author, with the intention of voting on it".

     https://wiki.php.net/rfc/generators

If you have any further feedback, now would be a good time to raise it. If there is something you previously posted, but which I didn't yet address, please let me know. There were around 150 mails and I sure missed some of them.

I've some comments how that I've read the RFC:

Recognition of generator functions 1. Any function which contains a yield statement is automatically a generator function. 2. The initial implementation required that generator functions are marked with an asterix modifier (function*). This method has the advantage that generators are more explicit and also allows for yield-less coroutines. The automatic detection was chosen over the asterix modifier for the following reasons:

I am against this. This is even more magic in PHP. Is it really that difficult to have to mark the function with a different keyword, such as "generator":

You know, this conversation feels like it's going in circles. I thought we already agreed there wouldn't be one.

generator function getLinesFromFile($fileName) {

     if (!$fileHandle = fopen($fileName, 'r')) {
        return;
    }
     There is an existing generator implementation in HipHop PHP, which

uses automatic-detection. Using the asterix modifier would break compatibility.

This should not be a concern, sure, it's annoying for the hiphop developers but they chose to copy and then *chance* the PHP language for their own effect.

yield: Yields the value null with an auto-incrementing integer key.

What is the usecase for this? cheers, Derick

-- Andrew Faulds http://ajf.me/