Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:84162
Return-Path: <me@kelunik.com>
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net
Received: (qmail 81140 invoked from network); 2 Mar 2015 10:28:24 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1)
  by localhost with SMTP; 2 Mar 2015 10:28:24 -0000
Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=me@kelunik.com; sender-id=unknown
Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=me@kelunik.com; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain kelunik.com from 81.169.146.219 cause and error)
X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: me@kelunik.com
X-Host-Fingerprint: 81.169.146.219 mo4-p00-ob.smtp.rzone.de  
Received: from [81.169.146.219] ([81.169.146.219:23886] helo=mo4-p00-ob.smtp.rzone.de)
	by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP
	id E1/35-48321-54B34F45 for <internals@lists.php.net>; Mon, 02 Mar 2015 05:28:22 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1425292098; l=5243;
	s=domk; d=kelunik.com;
	h=Content-Type:Cc:To:From:Subject:Date:References:In-Reply-To:
	MIME-Version;
	bh=noWJ4fyJHxKfFN6HzLBbNc7jfGvTtTRDUU/TlmjA2XM=;
	b=MeAwYYiKV6fhEdE24zsc/azHsTL9qtuQm7twXATbqpwOn7Sxlj392zMmtLaptEV5qVU
	nB+kqYJGspUf3Tp+11n4a+UPW2KC1fFcU6oV8yhVPwH7hmF1dxhfhVK98u3CoYgDHmb+n
	NPPsEvdM6W+u49qmgLTONspW2lC13axq6ck=
X-RZG-AUTH: :IWkkfkWkbvHsXQGmRYmUo9mls2vWuiu+7SLDup6E67mzuoNNBqD/sK4=
X-RZG-CLASS-ID: mo00
Received: from mail-wi0-f170.google.com ([209.85.212.170])
	by smtp.strato.de (RZmta 37.3 AUTH)
	with ESMTPSA id u01c23r22ASIp0s
	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(Client did not present a certificate)
	for <internals@lists.php.net>;
	Mon, 2 Mar 2015 11:28:18 +0100 (CET)
Received: by wibbs8 with SMTP id bs8so13604900wib.4
        for <internals@lists.php.net>; Mon, 02 Mar 2015 02:28:18 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.11.205 with SMTP id s13mr34300570wib.32.1425292098698;
 Mon, 02 Mar 2015 02:28:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.27.77.131 with HTTP; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 02:28:18 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <BLU436-SMTP2181570F45124CE99798F40E2100@phx.gbl>
References: <CAH8MpnmTj8Y5cST2M0LQZFKiV6sp_sPV=h8dku3_HPxsQYeYOg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANUQDCj7uNpjmqi6uUE3wodL8=+F5cnmwb8y-4Omba7DFGm-Ug@mail.gmail.com>
	<BLU436-SMTP2181570F45124CE99798F40E2100@phx.gbl>
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2015 11:28:18 +0100
Message-ID: <CANUQDCjSDfepSBmXTqPEEoF+2fscEAdTfU7bMn7j62PckR+XYg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bob Weinand <bobwei9@hotmail.com>
Cc: Daniel Lowrey <rdlowrey@php.net>, "internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c23eee3e870705104bad4a
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC Discuss] Generator Delegation
From: me@kelunik.com (Niklas Keller)

--001a11c23eee3e870705104bad4a
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

2015-03-02 11:11 GMT+01:00 Bob Weinand <bobwei9@hotmail.com>:

> > Am 02.03.2015 um 01:17 schrieb Niklas Keller <me@kelunik.com>:
> >
> > 2015-03-02 0:52 GMT+01:00 Daniel Lowrey <rdlowrey@php.net>:
> >
> >> Hi folks,
> >>
> >> I'd like to initiate discussion on a proposal to implement generator
> >> delegation via the following new syntax inside generator functions:
> >>
> >>    yield * <expr>
> >>
> >> The Generator Delegation RFC is available here:
> >>
> >> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/generator-delegation
> >>
> >> This proposal is conceptually related to (and requires functionality
> >> proposed by) the forerunning Generator Return Expressions RFC here:
> >>
> >> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/generator-return-expressions
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks for your time,
> >>
> >> Daniel
> >>
> >
> > The proposed syntax has an issue:
> >
> > <?php
> >
> > function a () {
> >    echo yield * 3;
> > }
> >
> > $a =3D a();
> > $a->send(42);
> >
> > http://3v4l.org/n1sGb#v550
> >
> > This is currently valid PHP.
> >
> > Regards, Niklas
>
> Hey,
>
> I think we could use "yield from" as operator here.
>
> Yes, BC. So, I won't make "from" a keyword, but rather specify an own
> token for "yield from" (T_YIELD_FROM).
> That way we have no BC break, except someone tries to yield a constant
> named "from". I think that's a really minor break =E2=80=A6 and in case t=
his breaks
> someones code, he needs to wrap the constant in parenthesis: "yield (from=
)".
>
> We can have nice syntax here with a minimal break, so, then, why not?
>
> Thanks,
> Bob


If those keywords can be combined to one, that would be totally fine.
I think BC breaks are less a problem when the lexer RFC passes, but that
shouldn't lead to a lot more keyboards being added.
So yield from will be totally fine, it's already used in other languages.

Regards, Niklas

--001a11c23eee3e870705104bad4a--