Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:60146 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 69458 invoked from network); 18 Apr 2012 01:18:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 18 Apr 2012 01:18:25 -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 67.192.241.123 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 67.192.241.123 smtp123.dfw.emailsrvr.com Linux 2.6 Received: from [67.192.241.123] ([67.192.241.123:37602] helo=smtp123.dfw.emailsrvr.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 6A/61-21594-0661E8F4 for ; Tue, 17 Apr 2012 21:18:24 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp2.relay.dfw1a.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 946FA780D9; Tue, 17 Apr 2012 21:18:21 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: OK Received: by smtp2.relay.dfw1a.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: smalyshev-AT-sugarcrm.com) with ESMTPSA id 5857978061; Tue, 17 Apr 2012 21:18:21 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4F8E165C.2080601@sugarcrm.com> Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 18:18:20 -0700 Organization: SugarCRM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120327 Thunderbird/11.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alan Knowles CC: "internals@lists.php.net" References: <4F8DF4B1.2040307@sugarcrm.com> <4F8E14AC.90503@akbkhome.com> In-Reply-To: <4F8E14AC.90503@akbkhome.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] skipping optional parameters From: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com (Stas Malyshev) Hi! > a) it kind of encourages using long lists of arguments (which is not > normally regarded as good practice) This ship has sailed long ago, these lists are the reality. And rewriting all the code to change all function calls is in most cases completely infeasible. > c) the current situation would syntax error out on ,, as a function call > argument, which is handy if you accidentally typed ,, twice by accident. > if this changes, not only would you loose this syntax error, but it > would do unpredictable things. There are many situations where you could type something by accident and have it change the meaning of the call. For example, if to type: if($foo); bar(); then bar() would execute always. This does not prevent us from using ; as statement separator or from using if's. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227