Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:110051 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 5415 invoked from network); 6 May 2020 21:38:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 6 May 2020 21:38:52 -0000 Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E6A61804B4 for ; Wed, 6 May 2020 13:14:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on php-smtp4.php.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FREEMAIL_FROM, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-ASN: AS15169 209.85.128.0/17 X-Spam-Virus: No X-Envelope-From: Received: from mail-wr1-f44.google.com (mail-wr1-f44.google.com [209.85.221.44]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS for ; Wed, 6 May 2020 13:14:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wr1-f44.google.com with SMTP id y3so3718640wrt.1 for ; Wed, 06 May 2020 13:14:07 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=S1Kbs5OnA1ZkTU8BRUR+Wa2nCM3yPogWqQzkFDayp9Q=; b=rY3nlYgf7pdx0llQkKkG6y8id/ByG95AtVJ9T4YQyxVaJNZNPxWGGXhefY3UOhmbM9 AEXZK5VRiBcIGtF1Mmek0hNI5F6KN2UwnXorqZ6itofwedvUgV/5snxfYOxQnyk91YQQ kFtTNobcee7mkXDkkzJJ3urYrVFfIvE0xCyuRUbwTPE5bRLqy5l23ULNjnfQbTu60zqM SIyHQZxY9HY/e53noc9z61YBsAmwcJTEJVVzai205SPu9HeBkjB6yjqTSlJsMv+Zt2uh 0TbSvJA0W21K9W4DThDPX/PdkrceQh1TvDHpUgZhO49nGgef6TJgPewiC86gX5XVWSdv dzgw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=S1Kbs5OnA1ZkTU8BRUR+Wa2nCM3yPogWqQzkFDayp9Q=; b=F7ZeP12jjETbrnOuW+ndHU8tR6CSLmjMPYd+pjmZXDECLH4l3vDd3zJO6NJGpH/aX7 Wo5MsZnLXGD+b0KDlVO3XukhIVK6+OIdJnbOSq47GDwgr4VULEIGcROmpWEKfMnLjGWj b0BDsZPACia6zlcPfl14E6D0tAZu+nSpIygXtcWYZijPzx4kbtNyoGv3rtLW4XA0TSny SAyByku8palSPMRpYYdxAiJnfbrta8e15hXW7KTQXVjB2vYXau2uHV9O5pokp3taFj6b UhWHCD5xw73RxUFuqvbKgtSM4tYGqmElkQkf7lJDl4YqHOAh2ji8jrLgejgNeX9WzUyE dx9g== X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0PuYZ8nqPZTS507l3dXv1b9ZxD5xqy+4E3+GPH1enFcQ4JhWw5ozs Ju1Ejy+XMtqN8pfUKvfxBlVENiQ7 X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypLL+QFaG22/S1yrF2oBLVEMk76h3A+c/9xxAOU60vFZEN3qrHE3mF0QqsSQzWGP1t01RQWviA== X-Received: by 2002:a5d:650c:: with SMTP id x12mr10859236wru.425.1588796044003; Wed, 06 May 2020 13:14:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.14] (cpc84253-brig22-2-0-cust114.3-3.cable.virginm.net. [81.108.141.115]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id y3sm4237561wrt.87.2020.05.06.13.14.02 for (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 06 May 2020 13:14:03 -0700 (PDT) To: internals@lists.php.net References: <1C09C0A9-1DA4-4753-8E5A-A739D52DA0B3@newclarity.net> Message-ID: <54c5f8f0-1526-53df-0912-0b00e0e54bc3@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 6 May 2020 21:14:02 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1C09C0A9-1DA4-4753-8E5A-A739D52DA0B3@newclarity.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Language: en-GB Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Parameter Blocks (vs. Constructor Property Promotion and Named Parameters) From: rowan.collins@gmail.com (Rowan Tommins) Hi Mike, On 06/05/2020 20:48, Mike Schinkel wrote: > Consider simply what we might call "Parameter Blocks." Since PHP always expects a parentheses to follow the function or method name it should be possible to opt-in replace it with a brace-enclosed block of parameters instead since it would be unambiguous and this no conflict, and no need for new keywords. > > The following illustrates how it my be used by repurposing an example from the RFC: > ... I'm not really clear what this example is showing. It seems to be the same as the one in Nikita's RFC, but with the punctuation changed slightly from "(public $foo, public $bar)" to "{public $foo; public $bar;}" I'm not sure how this changes anything, or how it relates to named parameters. Could you expand on the problems you see this solving? Regards, -- Rowan Tommins (né Collins) [IMSoP]