Content deleted Content added
Nowhere man (talk | contribs) |
Pi Delport (talk | contribs) →Needs verification: respond regarding Baker's paper |
||
Line 266:
OK, I claimed the article was inconsistent with reachable publications, so with not a single attempt to counter that claim in nearly one year, I eventually rewrote the article. [[User:Nowhere man|Nowhere man]] ([[User talk:Nowhere man|talk]]) 21:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
: I'm not sure that the claim was clear enough to provoke a counter.
: Regarding [http://www.pipeline.com/~hbaker1/Iterator.html Baker's paper], it's entirely consistent with the article. The sentence quoted is a simplified introduction, taken somewhat out of context; two paragraphs later, Baker unambiguously explains the difference between generators and functions/iterator classes: <blockquote>One is tempted to think that every co-routine generator can be emulated by a function which has access to some persistent local state (e.g., an Algol-60 "own" variable), but this is not the case. The standard counter-example is the "samefringe" problem, which can be solved by two co-routined "fringe" generators, but cannot be solved by a function with only a bounded amount of persistent local state.</blockquote>
: The paper as a whole is an argument against iterator classes, and for functional generators. <span style="white-space:nowrap">—[[User:Piet Delport|Piet Delport]] <small>2008-03-18 06:30</small></span>
== Suggestion for clarifications, definitions, etc. ==
| |||