Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:61714
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 74.125.82.54 as permitted sender)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_96F8F763-FAB4-4400-B8AB-B780386A03F8"
In-Reply-To: <CAKZjf5S-GaqhEG2wa86cPo=eV8StkHs9d1TX2SNbXC2x5E1AoQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 21:06:39 +0300
Cc: internals@lists.php.net
Message-ID: <224BD95C-B652-42CA-B397-846E7544680B@gmail.com>
References: <CAF+90c_47HtYHnMztUUb7Gd5_gKhpJYJN=G-KJFSmSt_=w2+Lw@mail.gmail.com> <CAF+90c8arwhLbaBKWOJnny=j=oXLakaWLDs_cqJUqbGy37TsLg@mail.gmail.com> <CAKZjf5SFOmEg97Wn-aw8RFG8QtWPk902Vsh+oDpGQnJSs+MFYw@mail.gmail.com> <CAESVnVrRZkmkQ-G_DRWv=9JExRVyXZmi6i81H7-766rTm50SAA@mail.gmail.com> <CAKZjf5TbDtSVs7twwVgXH6wCVB0sfQhfasAkCsO47Y_x_9bfuA@mail.gmail.com> <500EDCC7.1020402@ajf.me> <D7DAFE9C-E5F8-4CA1-8807-6E1C5638275A@gmail.com> <CAKZjf5S-GaqhEG2wa86cPo=eV8StkHs9d1TX2SNbXC2x5E1AoQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alex Aulbach <alex.aulbach@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Generators in PHP
From: g.b.yahav@gmail.com (Yahav Gindi Bar)

--Apple-Mail=_96F8F763-FAB4-4400-B8AB-B780386A03F8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=utf-8

You could introduce new keyword for generator... even call it =
"generator" but why (its kind of "design" issue...)? if the syntax that =
one should use in order to implement the generator is just like a =
function, but using yield keyword in order to return the items to store?

As long as I know, most programming languages that uses generators wrap =
it up in a function, so why shall we introduce new keyword that can =
confuse programmers?

I think using function and returning the value using yield is great... =
although I'm open to any new nicely-written generator syntax.

On 24 =D7=91=D7=99=D7=95=D7=9C 2012, at 20:56, Alex Aulbach wrote:

> 2012/7/24 Andrew Faulds <ajf@ajf.me>:
>> Much easier to make an iterator with a function than as a class.
>=20
> 2012/7/24 Yahav Gindi Bar <g.b.yahav@gmail.com>:
>> I agree, implementing a class only for iterator may be pain =
sometimes, and functions is much better - especially when 5.3 got the =
anonymous functions, so we can even use the generators for iterator =
functions in class methods which can be great.
>=20
> Ok, why not call it "iterator" or "generator" or "huffpuff" instead of
> "function"? It's just the naming, which disturbs me, because a
> function is something which is, when called once finished once. I
> don't like mathematics, but that is one of the definition of a
> function:
>=20
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Function_%28mathematics%29
> "each input is related to exactly one output"
>=20
> Couldn't be so complicated to introduce a new name for that, or?
>=20
> --=20
> Alex Aulbach


--Apple-Mail=_96F8F763-FAB4-4400-B8AB-B780386A03F8--