On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 6:28 AM, Stas Malyshev smalys...@sugarcrm.com wrote:
Hi!
For PHP we would need to have some similar behavior. PHP's current
exception model is incompatible with GeneratorExitException (because
PHP does not have BaseExceptions). So what I'd probably do instead is
On Sun, 19 Aug 2012, Nikita Popov wrote:
On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 6:28 AM, Stas Malyshev smalys...@sugarcrm.com wrote:
For PHP we would need to have some similar behavior. PHP's current
exception model is incompatible with GeneratorExitException
(because PHP does not have
On 19/08/12 17:03, Derick Rethans wrote:
On Sun, 19 Aug 2012, Nikita Popov wrote:
On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 6:28 AM, Stas Malyshev smalys...@sugarcrm.com wrote:
For PHP we would need to have some similar behavior. PHP's current
exception model is incompatible with GeneratorExitException
On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 6:03 PM, Derick Rethans der...@php.net wrote:
On Sun, 19 Aug 2012, Nikita Popov wrote:
On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 6:28 AM, Stas Malyshev smalys...@sugarcrm.com
wrote:
For PHP we would need to have some similar behavior. PHP's current
exception model is incompatible
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 4:49 AM, Sherif Ramadan theanomaly...@gmail.com wrote:
One question, though: It looks based on the voting like finally {} blocks
are going in. So... what should happen in the following situation:
function stuff() {
try {
foreach (range(1, 100) as $i) {
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 4:49 AM, Sherif Ramadan theanomaly...@gmail.com wrote:
One question, though: It looks based on the voting like finally {} blocks
are going in. So... what should happen in the following situation:
function stuff() {
try {
foreach (range(1, 100) as $i) {
Hi!
For PHP we would need to have some similar behavior. PHP's current
exception model is incompatible with GeneratorExitException (because
PHP does not have BaseExceptions). So what I'd probably do instead is
monkeypatch a ZEND_RETURN opcode at the current execution position and
Patching
-Original Message-
From: Andrew Faulds [mailto:a...@ajf.me]
Sent: 25 July 2012 18:03
[...]
Fact: Adding a new name for a special kind of function as a syntax
construct is going to cost (possibly unnecessary) time and energy,
because now you have functions, and weird things that
On 07/27/2012 07:23 AM, Lester Caine wrote:
Nikita Popov wrote:
I'll ask again since no one has answered ...
In a different way ...
Is the only thing that changes the 'function' into a 'generator'
replacing
the call to process the data with 'yield'? ( That would be
'SUSPEND' in an
SQL
One question, though: It looks based on the voting like finally {} blocks
are going in. So... what should happen in the following situation:
function stuff() {
try {
foreach (range(1, 100) as $i) {
yield $i;
}
}
finally {
print All done;
}
}
Does All done
On 2012-08-09 14:25, Larry Garfield wrote:
On 07/27/2012 07:23 AM, Lester Caine wrote:
Nikita - I am looking for a well reasoned argument as to why generator
has to be added at all! 'Just because it can be' is not a valid
argument, but perhaps you could add to the RFC the performance
2012/7/28 Rasmus Lerdorf ras...@lerdorf.com:
Very early versions of PHP v1 actually had distinct list, map and set
implementations but I replaced those early on with a unified hybrid
ordered map implementation and just called it the Array type. The
thinking was that in almost all situations in
On 07/26/2012 11:36 PM, Alex Aulbach wrote:
1) The bigger the language grows, the more we need to think about how
to implement new features.
I think it's a bad argument to say we made this and that not so
ideal, so we can make this also. Don't be so idealistic. :)
I think it's a duty to make
Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
I don't think this generator question is any different. We need to
explain generators in the simplest way possible. The simplest way to
explain generators is to not even worry about them being generators at
all. Simply say that functions can now return arrays one element at
On 07/27/2012 11:59 PM, Lester Caine wrote:
Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
I don't think this generator question is any different. We need to
explain generators in the simplest way possible. The simplest way to
explain generators is to not even worry about them being generators at
all. Simply say that
Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
I don't think this generator question is any different. We need to
explain generators in the simplest way possible. The simplest way to
explain generators is to not even worry about them being generators at
all. Simply say that functions can now return arrays one element at
On 07/28/2012 12:37 AM, Lester Caine wrote:
Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
I don't think this generator question is any different. We need to
explain generators in the simplest way possible. The simplest way to
explain generators is to not even worry about them being
generators at
all. Simply say
2012/7/26 Rasmus Lerdorf ras...@lerdorf.com:
A generator is enough like a function that we
don't need a new keyword for it. We typically don't get too pedantic in
PHP concepts and try to keep things simple. What we call an array isn't
technically an array either. It's an ordered map, but it
Lester Caine wrote:
Fact: yield makes functions some kind of different.
Yes, they turn normal functions into continuation functions (functions
which can be exited and reentered dynamically).
But WHY would you not simply put the function that is handling the returned data
in place of the
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 9:56 AM, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote:
I'll ask again since no one has answered ...
In a different way ...
Is the only thing that changes the 'function' into a 'generator' replacing
the call to process the data with 'yield'? ( That would be 'SUSPEND' in an
Nikita Popov wrote:
I'll ask again since no one has answered ...
In a different way ...
Is the only thing that changes the 'function' into a 'generator' replacing
the call to process the data with 'yield'? ( That would be 'SUSPEND' in an
SQL procedure ) ...
So how DOES an IDE work out the flow
Nikita - I am looking for a well reasoned argument as to why generator has
to be added at all! 'Just because it can be' is not a valid argument, but
perhaps you could add to the RFC the performance implication or advantage of
what is being proposed. That would at least be some comparison
On 27/07/12 13:23, Lester Caine wrote:
Nikita Popov wrote:
I'll ask again since no one has answered ...
In a different way ...
Is the only thing that changes the 'function' into a 'generator'
replacing
the call to process the data with 'yield'? ( That would be
'SUSPEND' in an
SQL procedure
Sherif Ramadan wrote:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/generators#performance
You can find a small micro benchmark at
https://gist.github.com/2975796. It compares several ways of iterating
ranges:
What part of this discussion led you to believe such a ridiculous
argument as to why generator were
The micro benchmark is just that, and is not as far as I can see testing
the sort of iterating process that would happen normally when going through
a data set. It simply times the iterator, but does not compare like with
like!
I hear your concerns about performance, and you're good to
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 10:36 PM, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote:
But WHY would you not simply put the function that is handling the returned
data in place of the yield?
Why do you want to keep exiting and re-entering the 'do loop' when the data
can simply be forwarded direct to a
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 11:00 PM, Jared Williams
jared.willia...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Though here is seemingly another problem, though it could be within
spl's MultipleIterator()
Thanks, this is fixed now (see
https://github.com/nikic/php-src/commit/268740d9848d435054ce73a8cfe36b2b732cd1f7).
It
2012/7/25 Sherif Ramadan theanomaly...@gmail.com:
PHP made implementation mistakes in the past that led to awkward
behavior (like objects passed by value in PHP4), but that's never
stopped things from moving forward and offering up useful features
that users want. I think putting the technical
Alex Aulbach wrote:
PHP made implementation mistakes in the past that led to awkward
behavior (like objects passed by value in PHP4), but that's never
stopped things from moving forward and offering up useful features
that users want. I think putting the technical details aside the
engine can
I like that kind of agile programming, too.
But if someone like me says come on, lets make it a little bit more
easy, because returning objects from functions is some kind of
unconventional; many developers will make mistakes here... - why not?
They will. I can tell by sure.
What are
Sherif Ramadan wrote:
Just between PHP 5.2 and 5.4 we've gained traits, closures,
namespaces, function array derefrencing, access to member upon
instantiation, and lots of other lovely additions to the language. I
don't see languages like Java or Python evolving this quickly -- by
contrast.
( I'll start a new thread for my other rant ... )
nah, you won't, you will bring that up in every thread instead.
--
Ferenc Kovács
@Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu
Just between PHP 5.2 and 5.4 we've gained traits, closures,
namespaces, function array derefrencing, access to member upon
instantiation, and lots of other lovely additions to the language. I
don't see languages like Java or Python evolving this quickly -- by
contrast.
But now we also need
Like they have already... :/
Sent from Samsung Mobile
Ferenc Kovacs tyr...@gmail.com wrote:
( I'll start a new thread for my other rant ... )
nah, you won't, you will bring that up in every thread instead.
--
Ferenc Kovács
@Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu
Sherif Ramadan wrote:
I don't see anything about these particular features that isn't
already documented. Albeit there are parts of the documentation that
could always use a bit of refinement every now and then. With that
said, the manual isn't a place to tell people how a particular
feature
Generators aren't for you, then, they are for people like me who, for example,
used a C# generator for yielding tokens, or, for example, use generators to
iterate element by element through multi-dimensional arrays.
--
Sent from Samsung Mobile
Andrew Faulds
http://ajf.me/
Lester Caine
Andrew Faulds wrote:
Generators aren't for you, then, they are for people like me who, for example,
used a C# generator for yielding tokens, or, for example, use generators to
iterate element by element through multi-dimensional arrays.
Such as the family tree created by iterating through a
2012/7/25 Sherif Ramadan theanomaly...@gmail.com:
I don't understand what you find non-conventional about functions or
methods that return objects.
Again: I don't have any problems with the object returning. :)
I see a problem that the mechanism isn't understood and used wrong.
And I think,
2012/7/25 Andrew Faulds a...@ajf.me:
Generators aren't for you, then, they are for people like me who, for
example, used a C# generator for yielding tokens, or, for example, use
generators to iterate element by element through multi-dimensional arrays.
Then make it in the PHP way not in the
Again: I don't have any problems with the object returning. :)
I see a problem that the mechanism isn't understood and used wrong.
Isn't understood by who? Used wrong by who? Are we talking about
people using a feature, that doesn't exist yet in PHP, the wrong way
and arguing that there
We, of course, should try to avoid user confusion if it will be a big issue.
But I don't see any here.
Also, 20 years experience does not necessarily a good programmer make, nor an
expert in other programmers.
--
Sent from Samsung Mobile
Andrew Faulds
http://ajf.me/
Sherif Ramadan
I use PHP every day, but as explained most PHP-developers
will have problems and I can say that, because I've more than 20 years
experience in that. Do you have that?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority
I'm just wondering... for whom is PHP developed, for the PHP-internals
Sherif Ramadan wrote:
... I have no problem
with it, I use PHP every day, but as explained most PHP-developers
will have problems and I can say that, because I've more than 20 years
experience in that. Do you have that?
20 years experience in PHP? No, I believe it only ever appeared
On 25/07/12 15:19, Lester Caine wrote:
Sherif Ramadan wrote:
... I have no problem
with it, I use PHP every day, but as explained most PHP-developers
will have problems and I can say that, because I've more than 20 years
experience in that. Do you have that?
20 years experience in PHP? No,
Andrew Faulds wrote:
I top you 20 years with 37 years. I was programming in Algol in 1975 ( at
Warwick university ). I'm not a programmer, I'm a hardware engineer who has to
program to make systems work. I added PHP 12 years ago to create web based
applications to augment c and Pascal based
On 25/07/12 16:11, Lester Caine wrote:
Andrew Faulds wrote:
I top you 20 years with 37 years. I was programming in Algol in 1975
( at
Warwick university ). I'm not a programmer, I'm a hardware engineer
who has to
program to make systems work. I added PHP 12 years ago to create web
based
2012/7/25 Ferenc Kovacs tyr...@gmail.com:
more than 20 years
experience in that. Do you have that?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority
So what? U are using Wikipedia to invalidate me. :) shrug Is it so
bad to hear an people with more experience? Do you have problems with
it with
Andrew Faulds wrote:
Boo hoo, PHP has new features, you'll have to understand them, shock horror!
Actually I've not even look at some of these newfangled bits, and if they did
appear in one of my key libraries then I'd definitely fork a version and
maintain my own copy! I'm STILL trying to
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 5:11 PM, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote:
Andrew Faulds wrote:
I top you 20 years with 37 years. I was programming in Algol in 1975 ( at
Warwick university ). I'm not a programmer, I'm a hardware engineer who
has to
program to make systems work. I added PHP 12
On 25/07/12 16:37, Alex Aulbach wrote:
2012/7/25 Ferenc Kovacs tyr...@gmail.com:
more than 20 years
experience in that. Do you have that?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority
So what? U are using Wikipedia to invalidate me. :) shrug Is it so
bad to hear an people with more
2012/7/25 Andrew Faulds a...@ajf.me:
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
He linked to the Wikipedia Appeal to authority article because it's a
common logical fallacy. Experience alone does not make you any more right
than somebody else, and in the same way, someone without it is not less
right.
Also, I have 16 years of experience at life, so obviously I'm an
On 25/07/12 16:43, Alex Aulbach wrote:
2012/7/25 Andrew Faulds a...@ajf.me:
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
On 25/07/12 16:47, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
He linked to the Wikipedia Appeal to authority article because
it's a common logical fallacy. Experience alone does not make you
any more right than somebody else, and in the same way, someone
without it is not less right.
Also, I
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 5:37 PM, Alex Aulbach alex.aulb...@gmail.comwrote:
2012/7/25 Ferenc Kovacs tyr...@gmail.com:
more than 20 years
experience in that. Do you have that?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority
So what? U are using Wikipedia to invalidate me. :) shrug Is it
On 25/07/12 16:51, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 5:37 PM, Alex Aulbach alex.aulb...@gmail.com
mailto:alex.aulb...@gmail.com wrote:
2012/7/25 Ferenc Kovacs tyr...@gmail.com mailto:tyr...@gmail.com:
more than 20 years
experience in that. Do you have that?
On 7/25/2012 7:50 AM, Andrew Faulds wrote:
On 25/07/12 15:19, Lester Caine wrote:
Sherif Ramadan wrote:
... I have no problem
with it, I use PHP every day, but as explained most PHP-developers
will have problems and I can say that, because I've more than 20 years
experience in that. Do you
Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
some/most of the E_STRICT messages are telling you about (possible) problems in
your code.
The major hurdle here is 'static', and not being able to use a function both
statically or with $this. PEAR is currently throwing these 'warnings' so is
there problems in the PEAR
On 25/07/12 17:09, Lester Caine wrote:
Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
some/most of the E_STRICT messages are telling you about (possible)
problems in
your code.
The major hurdle here is 'static', and not being able to use a
function both statically or with $this. PEAR is currently throwing
these
Andrew Faulds wrote:
Do you use PHP objects and classes at all?
Because if you do, then your PHP5 code SHOULDN'T work in PHP4. Perhaps it does,
but I find that very suspicious. And you shouldn't rely on it.
http://lsces.org.uk/hg/
https://github.com/bitweaver
http://cia.vc/stats/author/lsces
2012/7/25 Andrew Faulds a...@ajf.me:
Experience can be helpful. But you must support things with facts
Ok, I tried to bring all the pro arguments together.
Suggestion:
For a generator, rename the keyword function to ... generator or
something like that. Example:
generator hugo()
{
On 25/07/12 17:54, Alex Aulbach wrote:
2012/7/25 Andrew Faulds a...@ajf.me:
Experience can be helpful. But you must support things with facts
Ok, I tried to bring all the pro arguments together.
Suggestion:
For a generator, rename the keyword function to ... generator or
something like that.
Fact: Adding a new name for a special kind of function as a syntax
construct is going to cost (possibly unnecessary) time and energy,
because now you have functions, and weird things that look almost like
functions but aren't and can only be used to make generators.
Just to put my oar in too,
On 25/07/12 18:58, Dave Ingram wrote:
Fact: Adding a new name for a special kind of function as a syntax
construct is going to cost (possibly unnecessary) time and energy,
because now you have functions, and weird things that look almost like
functions but aren't and can only be used to make
Just please don't forget that generator isn't quite a rare word
(unlike yield), so there are high chances for collisions (in
particular with namespaced code). So if you have some kind of
Code\Generator class, you're screwed.
Keywords don't grow on trees, you know ;)
Also I'd like to point out
Lester Caine wrote:
Do you use PHP objects and classes at all?
Because if you do, then your PHP5 code SHOULDN'T work in PHP4. Perhaps it does,
but I find that very suspicious. And you shouldn't rely on it.
http://lsces.org.uk/hg/
https://github.com/bitweaver
http://cia.vc/stats/author/lsces
I
Hi!
Speaking of parse errors, I'm having trouble parsing this line. I *think*
you're saying that generators are just complex things and that's the way it
should be. I... guess I agree, though I have a lower opinion on the
complexity of generators. Seem like a fairly straightforward concept
Sara Golemon wrote:
Fact: yield makes functions some kind of different.
Yes, they turn normal functions into continuation functions (functions
which can be exited and reentered dynamically).
But WHY would you not simply put the function that is handling the returned data
in place of the
Suggestion:
For a generator, rename the keyword function to ... generator or
something like that. Example:
generator hugo()
{
yield ...
}
As Nikita pointed out, having a T_GENERATOR token will cause side-effect
problems from namespace collisions. This is a concern any
-Original Message-
From: Nikita Popov [mailto:nikita@gmail.com]
Sent: 22 July 2012 16:53
To: Jared Williams
Cc: Nikita Popov; PHP internals
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Generators in PHP
On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 6:31 PM, Jared Williams
jared.willia...@ntlworld.com wrote
2012/7/25 Nikita Popov nikita@gmail.com:
particular with namespaced code). So if you have some kind of
Code\Generator class, you're screwed.
Keywords don't grow on trees, you know ;)
Hm. Ok, thats a problem.
Oh, man, do I really have to find a good keyword myself? Maybe we
should use a
2012/7/25 Sara Golemon poll...@php.net:
Fact: yield/generators is more or less complicated, this shouldn't be
changed - it's a proven concept.
Speaking of parse errors, I'm having trouble parsing this line. I *think*
you're saying that generators are just complex things and that's the way it
On 07/25/2012 04:25 PM, Alex Aulbach wrote:
In 50 lines of code yield will be just overseen.
But I meant something different: I thought of documentation. Maybe
someone reads the docs. Really! In the docs he will find functions.
And in the function this yield. He dosn't want to know that. It
2012/7/23 Sara Golemon poll...@php.net:
Curious if you could expand on that. Generators are iterators, so not sure
what you're asking for.
It's the point which is unlogical for me. Maybe it's a question. If
the generator is an object with the implementation of an iterator, why
do we need to
On 24/07/12 18:34, Alex Aulbach wrote:
2012/7/23 Sara Golemon poll...@php.net:
Curious if you could expand on that. Generators are iterators, so not sure
what you're asking for.
It's the point which is unlogical for me. Maybe it's a question. If
the generator is an object with the
On 24 ביול 2012, at 20:35, Andrew Faulds wrote:
On 24/07/12 18:34, Alex Aulbach wrote:
2012/7/23 Sara Golemon poll...@php.net:
Curious if you could expand on that. Generators are iterators, so not sure
what you're asking for.
It's the point which is unlogical for me. Maybe it's a question.
2012/7/24 Andrew Faulds a...@ajf.me:
Much easier to make an iterator with a function than as a class.
2012/7/24 Yahav Gindi Bar g.b.ya...@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
On 24/07/12 18:56, Alex Aulbach wrote:
2012/7/24 Andrew Faulds a...@ajf.me:
Much easier to make an iterator with a function than as a class.
2012/7/24 Yahav Gindi Bar g.b.ya...@gmail.com:
I agree, implementing a class only for iterator may be pain sometimes, and
functions is much better -
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
On 24/07/12 19:06, Yahav Gindi Bar wrote:
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
2012/7/24 Andrew Faulds a...@ajf.me:
But PHP functions usually have side-effects, they aren't strict mathematical
functions.
Ah, you might mean str_tok()? Are there more, do you have a list?
But we're in PHP-programming-context. You write a function in PHP, you
call it and it will return once
On 24/07/12 19:32, Alex Aulbach wrote:
2012/7/24 Andrew Faulds a...@ajf.me:
But PHP functions usually have side-effects, they aren't strict mathematical
functions.
Ah, you might mean str_tok()? Are there more, do you have a list?
But we're in PHP-programming-context. You write a function in
Em Tue, 24 Jul 2012 19:56:46 +0200, Alex Aulbach alex.aulb...@gmail.com
escreveu:
2012/7/24 Andrew Faulds a...@ajf.me:
Much easier to make an iterator with a function than as a class.
2012/7/24 Yahav Gindi Bar g.b.ya...@gmail.com:
I agree, implementing a class only for iterator may be pain
2012/7/24 Andrew Faulds a...@ajf.me:
PHP is not LISP.
Hey, I don't want to have LISP. I just want to make complicated things
more clear, and it doesn't matter, if something else is right or wrong
in the past.
It isn't difficult to make a new keyword or something wich disticts it
a little bit
2012/7/24 Gustavo Lopes glo...@nebm.ist.utl.pt:
When you have function foo() { ... yield /* ... */; ... } and
you call foo(), you get the same thing every time: a Generator object. It so
happens that the implementation of that object is inside the body of the
function.
Hmmm. It's not that I
On 24/07/12 20:13, Alex Aulbach wrote:
2012/7/24 Gustavo Lopes glo...@nebm.ist.utl.pt:
When you have function foo() { ... yield /* ... */; ... } and
you call foo(), you get the same thing every time: a Generator object. It so
happens that the implementation of that object is inside the body of
Or when you have programming errors, when you write
function blubb()
{
... yields...
...
... return
}
(you may only see the return).
But that's okay, because PHP *does* see both, and it tells you yield may
not be used with return in a lovely little parser error. Some developers
On 24/07/12 19:32, Alex Aulbach wrote:
2012/7/24 Andrew Faulds a...@ajf.me:
But PHP functions usually have side-effects, they aren't strict
mathematical
functions.
Ah, you might mean str_tok()? Are there more, do you have a list?
But we're in PHP-programming-context. You write a
My first thought was how could someone reading the code see, that it
is a generator?
Somewhat snarky answer: By documenting the code in the first place.
Yeah, I know, we all inherit other people's code and the other person never
writes comments.
I don't think this is as big of a problem in
On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 6:31 PM, Jared Williams
jared.willia...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Can't yield a reference to an array item directly.
Eg.
function map(array $row)
{
yield $row[0];
}
Thanks, this is fixed now.
Also seems to be a problem with iterating
foreach(map($row) as $value)
2012/7/20 Nikita Popov nikita@gmail.com:
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 7:35 PM, Nikita Popov nikita@googlemail.com
wrote:
Hi internals!
The implementation is outlined in the RFC-stub here:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/generators
A small progress update on this:
* Generators are now
-Original Message-
From: Nikita Popov [mailto:nikita@gmail.com]
Sent: 20 July 2012 21:46
To: Nikita Popov
Cc: PHP internals
Subject: [PHP-DEV] Re: Generators in PHP
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 7:35 PM, Nikita Popov
nikita@googlemail.com wrote:
Hi internals
92 matches
Mail list logo
