Content deleted Content added
Pi Delport (talk | contribs) →C++ generators: right; i removed it |
Nowhere man (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 270:
: 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>
:: How could I make the claim more clear: a banner, examination of cited papers and quotation with links to another contradictory paper! As for Baker's paper, the quote you give doesn't say that generators have any relationship with loops or control structures, and clearly state that a PRNG is a classical example of generator. So I maintain that the article is plain false. It still cites papers that are contradictory to itself. If you can find a reachable reference that clearly support the old version, there's room to improve it based on those references. Until then, I'll revert to my modification.
:: I gave plenty of time to counter my claim, so don't revert to the previous state of the article without a strong reference. just saying that noone saw the long-standing claim isn't enough. [[User:Nowhere man|Nowhere man]] ([[User talk:Nowhere man|talk]]) 21:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
== Suggestion for clarifications, definitions, etc. ==
| |||