Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:60198 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 14238 invoked from network); 18 Apr 2012 20:24:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 18 Apr 2012 20:24:41 -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 67.192.241.163 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 67.192.241.163 smtp163.dfw.emailsrvr.com Linux 2.6 Received: from [67.192.241.163] ([67.192.241.163:55909] helo=smtp163.dfw.emailsrvr.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 87/B1-03623-8032F8F4 for ; Wed, 18 Apr 2012 16:24:41 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp16.relay.dfw1a.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id EF820401BB; Wed, 18 Apr 2012 16:24:37 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: OK Received: by smtp16.relay.dfw1a.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: smalyshev-AT-sugarcrm.com) with ESMTPSA id A147140199; Wed, 18 Apr 2012 16:24:37 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4F8F2304.7090402@sugarcrm.com> Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 13:24:36 -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: Matthew Weier O'Phinney CC: "internals@lists.php.net" References: <4F8DF4B1.2040307@sugarcrm.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] skipping optional parameters From: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com (Stas Malyshev) Hi! > My one comment, which others have raised, is readability of multiple > commas -- TBH, at first glance it has the appearance of a mistake. I > think those suggesting a keyword such as "default" make a good point in > this regard -- it makes it 100% clear that you want the default value I wouldn't mind default but that means another keyword which means another disruption (default would be pretty common method name, etc.) -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227