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/
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
