Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:55811 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 9947 invoked from network); 16 Oct 2011 00:20:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 16 Oct 2011 00:20:15 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain sugarcrm.com designates 207.97.245.123 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 207.97.245.123 smtp123.iad.emailsrvr.com Linux 2.6 Received: from [207.97.245.123] ([207.97.245.123:51240] helo=smtp123.iad.emailsrvr.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 45/00-09704-E332A9E4 for ; Sat, 15 Oct 2011 20:20:15 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp52.relay.iad1a.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id A7B6A24110B; Sat, 15 Oct 2011 20:20:10 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: OK Received: by smtp52.relay.iad1a.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: smalyshev-AT-sugarcrm.com) with ESMTPSA id F16172410DD; Sat, 15 Oct 2011 20:20:09 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4E9A2339.3060905@sugarcrm.com> Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2011 17:20:09 -0700 Organization: SugarCRM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20110929 Thunderbird/7.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ferenc Kovacs CC: PHP Internals References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] required argument after an optional should make it required From: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com (Stas Malyshev) Hi! On 9/26/11 4:43 PM, Ferenc Kovacs wrote: > Hi. > > I've just found a nice feature request in the bugtracker: > https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=53399 > > what do you think about it? I think the idea is good, however the patch seems too complicated. I do not think we need additional flag and not sure why would we need additional pass through arguments to do it - if we say everything after certain arg is optional, then we already know how to do it, we have settings for that in args structure. And we can detect this stuation immediately when we parse the arguments on compile. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227