Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:21537 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 46284 invoked by uid 1010); 15 Jan 2006 10:37:18 -0000 Delivered-To: ezmlm-scan-internals@lists.php.net Delivered-To: ezmlm-internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 46268 invoked from network); 15 Jan 2006 10:37:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 15 Jan 2006 10:37:18 -0000 X-Host-Fingerprint: 204.11.219.139 lerdorf.com Linux 2.4/2.6 Received: from ([204.11.219.139:41684] helo=colo.lerdorf.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.0 beta r(6323M)) with SMTP id AD/1C-13436-DD52AC34 for ; Sun, 15 Jan 2006 05:37:17 -0500 Received: from [192.168.200.106] (c-24-6-5-134.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [24.6.5.134]) (authenticated bits=0) by colo.lerdorf.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Debian-3) with ESMTP id k0FAb2Bd012120 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Sun, 15 Jan 2006 02:37:10 -0800 Message-ID: <43CA25CD.2040408@lerdorf.com> Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2006 02:37:01 -0800 User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (Macintosh/20051201) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Zeev Suraski CC: Aidan Lister , internals@lists.php.net References: <11370812947200000@9866357972520000.9866341568840000> <43C688AE.80403@php.net> <43C69B2A.8000802@php.net> <21.B4.29075.F75A6C34@pb1.pair.com> <54.A8.13436.BE6F9C34@pb1.pair.com> <43C9FF01.1060008@lerdorf.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20060115111835.0531d810@zend.com> In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060115111835.0531d810@zend.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88/1242/Sat Jan 14 16:00:41 2006 on colo X-Virus-Status: Clean Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Named arguments revisited From: rasmus@lerdorf.com (Rasmus Lerdorf) Zeev Suraski wrote: > At 09:51 15/01/2006, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: >> Aidan Lister wrote: >>> Are the PHP group prepared to accept and implement a named parameters >>> patch? >> >> As far as I am concerned it would depend on the patch. If you can >> come up with a way to do it with requiring rewriting all 4000+ >> functions out there, go for it. > > As Andi said, that's hardly the big issue (we could have provided it as > a userland feature, not applicable to internal functions, or applicable > to just a small subset of them). > > The big issue is whether or not we want that feature in the language, > and the answer appears to be no. Well, having half of a feature like that by only making it work in some places is what I think many folks are against. I don't think the answer is no if we had a clean and consistent way to implement it. I would certainly be all for it in that case. -Rasmus