Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:61775 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 32129 invoked from network); 25 Jul 2012 15:47:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 25 Jul 2012 15:47:53 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=ajf@ajf.me; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=ajf@ajf.me; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain ajf.me designates 64.22.89.133 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: ajf@ajf.me X-Host-Fingerprint: 64.22.89.133 oxmail.registrar-servers.com Linux 2.6 Received: from [64.22.89.133] ([64.22.89.133:54658] helo=oxmail.registrar-servers.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 4C/69-19281-82510105 for ; Wed, 25 Jul 2012 11:47:53 -0400 Received: from [192.168.0.200] (5ad32874.bb.sky.com [90.211.40.116]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by oxmail.registrar-servers.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7A3AAC30047; Wed, 25 Jul 2012 11:47:49 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <5010150E.2000401@ajf.me> Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 16:47:26 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120714 Thunderbird/14.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alex Aulbach CC: Sherif Ramadan , PHP internals References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Generators in PHP From: ajf@ajf.me (Andrew Faulds) On 25/07/12 16:43, Alex Aulbach wrote: > 2012/7/25 Andrew Faulds : >> We, of course, should try to avoid user confusion if it will be a big issue. >> >> But I don't see any here. > I said it's small and the fix is small also. Big issue, big fix, small > issue, small fix. Understand? > >> Also, 20 years experience does not necessarily a good programmer make, nor >> an expert in other programmers. > It's not sufficient but neccessary. > 1. It's not a small fix, you're introducing a whole new function syntax for generators, which I think is needless duplication. Plus it's more work, we now have to make special functions that can ONLY be used as generators and check at compile-time that they are generators and not functions. 2. It's not necessary. There are great programmers who have only been at it for 10 or 5 years. And there are terrible programmers who have been at it for decades. Also, please let us not devolve into asinine elitism. I would like to hope this mailing list's members are better than that. -- Andrew Faulds http://ajf.me/