Why wasn't yield added to C++0x?

Question

EDIT, 11 years after I asked this question: I feel vindicated for asking! C++20 finally did something close enough.

The original question follows below.

--

I have been using yield in many of my Python programs, and it really clears up the code in many cases. I blogged about it and it is one of my site's popular pages.

C# also offers yield – it is implemented via state-keeping in the caller side, done through an automatically generated class that keeps the state, local variables of the function, etc.

I am currently reading about C++0x and its additions; and while reading about the implementation of lambdas in C++0x, I find out that it was done via automatically generated classes too, equipped with operator() storing the lambda code. The natural question formed in my mind: they did it for lambdas, why didn't they consider it for support of "yield", too?

Surely they can see the value of co-routines... so I can only guess that they think macro-based implementations (such as Simon Tatham's) as an adequate substitute. They are not, however, for many reasons: callee-kept state, non-reentrant, macro-based (that alone is reason enough), etc.

Edit: yield doesn't depend on garbage collection, threads, or fibers. You can read Simon's article to see that I am talking about the compiler doing a simple transformation, such as:

int fibonacci() {     int a = 0, b = 1;     while (true) {         yield a;         int c = a + b;         a = b;         b = c;     } } 

Into:

struct GeneratedFibonacci {     int state;     int a, b;      GeneratedFibonacci() : state (0), a (0), b (1) {}      int operator()() {         switch (state) {         case 0:             state = 1;             while (true) {                 return a;          case 1:                 int c = a + b;                 a = b;                 b = c;             }         }     } } 

Garbage collection? No. Threads? No. Fibers? No. Simple transformation? Arguably, yes.

Answer 1

Adding a keyword is always tricky, because it invalidates previously valid code. You try to avoid that in a language with a code base as large as C++.

The evolution of C++ is a public process. If you feel yield should be in there, formulate an appropriate request to the C++ standard committee.

You will get your answer, directly from the people who made the decision.

Answer 2

I can't say why they didn't add something like this, but in the case of lambdas, they weren't just added to the language either.

They started life as a library implementation in Boost, which proved that

• lambdas are widely useful: a lot of people will use them when they're available, and that
• a library implementation in C++03 suffers a number of shortcomings.

Based on this, the committee decided to adopt some kind of lambdas in C++0x, and I believe they initially experimented with adding more general language features to allow a better library implementation than Boost has.

And eventually, they made it a core language feature, because they had no other choice: because it wasn't possible to make a good enough library implementation.

New core language features aren't simply added to the language because they seem like a good idea. The committee is very reluctant to add them, and the feature in question really needs to prove itself. It must be shown that the feature is:

• possible to implement in the compiler,
• going to solve a real need, and
• that a library implementation wouldn't be good enough.

In the case if a yield keyword, we know that the first point can be solved. As you've shown, it is a fairly simple transformation that can be done mechanically.

The second point is tricky. How much of a need for this is there? How widely used are the library implementations that exist? How many people have asked for this, or submitted proposals for it?

The last point seems to pass too. At least in C++03, a library implementation suffers some flaws, as you pointed out, which could justify a core language implementation. Could a better library implementation be made in C++0x though?

So I suspect the main problem is really a lack of interest. C++ is already a huge language, and no one wants it to grow bigger unless the features being added are really worth it. I suspect that this just isn't useful enough.