Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:62651 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 1852 invoked from network); 2 Sep 2012 01:46:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 2 Sep 2012 01:46:35 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain sugarcrm.com designates 67.192.241.113 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 67.192.241.113 smtp113.dfw.emailsrvr.com Linux 2.6 Received: from [67.192.241.113] ([67.192.241.113:57307] helo=smtp113.dfw.emailsrvr.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 44/7E-17065-A7AB2405 for ; Sat, 01 Sep 2012 21:46:35 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp11.relay.dfw1a.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 260A3D06BC; Sat, 1 Sep 2012 21:46:32 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: OK Received: by smtp11.relay.dfw1a.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: smalyshev-AT-sugarcrm.com) with ESMTPSA id BDB2BD06A8; Sat, 1 Sep 2012 21:46:31 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <5042BA76.1000100@sugarcrm.com> Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2012 18:46:30 -0700 Organization: SugarCRM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120824 Thunderbird/15.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Gustavo Lopes CC: PHP internals , Nikita Popov References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [VOTE] Generators From: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com (Stas Malyshev) Hi! > illegal state was written on the RFC when voting opened, and the RFC was > accepted almost unanimously. As the proposal was accepted as such, I saw > no valid reason not to merge. In fact, changing the proposal after it was > voted on would be much more objectionable. I definitely did not agree to using exceptions, though I support the rest of it. I'm completely fine with merging it but just for the record I'd like to note that accepting it doesn't mean we will not tweak it or change some fine details of it - like how we handle some error situations. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227