> On May 13, 2019, at 10:20 AM, Brian Goetz <brian.go...@oracle.com> wrote: > >> I kind a like the simplicity of the keyword yield but i don't think it's a >> good idea to use it. >> - as you said, yield in other language has a different meaning, so even if >> Java doesn't use yield in a generator it will be confusing for people >> discovering Java after Python by example. > > Everything is a tradeoff. There are two dimensions here to consider: > - What percentage of the user base has a polluted perspective? > - How badly are they polluted, and how hard is it to get over? > > My suspicion is that the first number is actually pretty small, and for most > of them, they can get over it. And also: the percentage of people _on this > list_ that are polluted is probably dramatically higher than for the ambient > Java developer population (those that take an active interest in language > evolution are probably familiar with more languages.).
It’s true; I have been polluted for “yield” for a long, long time. I think I would still prefer “produce”. > So, do we want to pick something that is clear for most people, but polluted > for a minority, or something that is crappy for everyone, but unpolluted? It > depends, of course, but my main point is that I think the “pollution” angle > is overblown, and we shouldn’t over-rotate to it. > >> - currently for loom the way to yield from a continuation is to use >> Continuation.yield(scope) with scope being a continuation scope, so it might >> be confusing if there is a static import because "yield scope;" and >> "yield(scope);" have two different meaning. > > Yes, but of course these can be changed, and if we went with yield in the > language, we would of course update Loom APIs accordingly. > > >
