Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:21565
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Message-ID: <002301c61c05$626f66c0$7d051fac@stumpy>
To: <internals@lists.php.net>
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 00:01:26 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	format=flowed;
	charset="iso-8859-1";
	reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Naming Arguments
From: pollita@php.net ("Sara Golemon")

That's "Naming" not "Named".

From the perspective of providing reflection in general and giving something 
for editors with code completion to use in specific, would there be an 
interrest in backfilling the arg_info structs for internal functions (both 
core and otherwise) with argument naming and type hinting even where it's 
not technically needed?

On the con side, this does add memory usage and processing time for no 
direct production benefit.  Any utility which wanted this degree of 
introspection *could* parse the XML protos in phpdoc and get the same (or 
better) information, so it doesn't really gain that much for what it costs.

Do please forget about the work required to fill in this information.  There 
are more than enough volunteers to do the grunge work(and frankly it'd be 
tough for 'em to get it horribly wrong), this is just a question of: "Would 
there be an interrest in folding this data into the core?" and secondly: 
"Should new extension writers be encouraged to fill this information in?".

-Sara