Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:52143
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.215.170 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Status: bad
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date
         :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type;
        b=AaqeqcUEjPEraiGtdmN+atlhgL9uxdptWS4TcxkeiuSXMvLLtWS3DUuHFtL3KBJRFI
         0KnK2zRFEY6oQHPRjbt30eP0sWa4PPAqFIFSu3R6HzES/eKocl8MJkbD3zuajeDcTTm5
         MHcRIcnQI2lm3oFv8ksPziUVbItq/T8KAUNY4=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: tyra3l@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <4DC79CB9.6090201@sugarcrm.com>
References: <4DC729EE.9090600@sugarcrm.com>
	<4DC75FFF.40008@lerdorf.com>
	<BANLkTinz_W2oHODz8E7naVjzUZhYtRi8TA@mail.gmail.com>
	<4DC79CB9.6090201@sugarcrm.com>
Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 10:02:17 +0200
Message-ID: <BANLkTimZJ7+Dkeuqngat8o32K6iyvQG4AA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Stas Malyshev <smalyshev@sugarcrm.com>
Cc: PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016364268a71d5b2b04a2d3422a
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] 5.4 again
From: info@tyrael.hu (Ferenc Kovacs)

--0016364268a71d5b2b04a2d3422a
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 9:50 AM, Stas Malyshev <smalyshev@sugarcrm.com>wrote:

> Hi!
>
>
>  another thing that I would love to see on the list: named parameters.
>> it was recently brought up, and I think that the original argument for
>> the rejection isn't true anymore:
>> http://www.php.net/~derick/meeting-notes.html#named-parameters
>> adding naming parameters would actually help to make clean and
>> maintainable code.
>>
>
> I'm all for this idea, but the question is - can we have a good design &
> implementation in next 2 months? If we can, great, if we can't - I'd rather
> have 5.4 than wait for it. E.g., if we have somebody ready to commit for
> certain timeframe to come up with it, then it makes sense to discuss it in
> this context.
>
>
agree.
I think we could have a good one (if somebody actually start working on it),
so I think we should leave the door open for this and if it's got written
and approved before the code freeze then we will include it.

Tyrael

--0016364268a71d5b2b04a2d3422a--