Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:61575 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 76864 invoked from network); 20 Jul 2012 16:59:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 20 Jul 2012 16:59:50 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain sugarcrm.com designates 67.192.241.133 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 67.192.241.133 smtp133.dfw.emailsrvr.com Linux 2.6 Received: from [67.192.241.133] ([67.192.241.133:56344] helo=smtp133.dfw.emailsrvr.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id CB/C9-18983-68E89005 for ; Fri, 20 Jul 2012 12:59:50 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp23.relay.dfw1a.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 8AD372F8670; Fri, 20 Jul 2012 12:59:47 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: OK Received: by smtp23.relay.dfw1a.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: smalyshev-AT-sugarcrm.com) with ESMTPSA id 170D52F8683; Fri, 20 Jul 2012 12:59:47 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <50098E82.1040400@sugarcrm.com> Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2012 09:59:46 -0700 Organization: SugarCRM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120713 Thunderbird/14.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Nikita Popov CC: Gustavo Lopes , Sara Golemon , "internals@lists.php.net" References: <5008A143.7010203@sugarcrm.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] zend_parse_parameters() improvements From: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com (Stas Malyshev) Hi! > support. At least as far as I can tell, people are really interested > in having named parameters, but would rather not have parameter > skipping as implemented. Which people? So far I've got only one person objecting - namely Gustavo - and he's OK with it with my changes as far as I can see. Do you have any objections to it? Please tell me so I could accommodate them. As for named parameters - it's fine but I don't see how one precludes the other. Named parameters is a big thing, and I don't see anybody working on it or even considering to work on it, so I don't see how you can compare something that is purely theoretical to a feature that has RFC and implementation. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227