Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:65289 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 77082 invoked from network); 28 Jan 2013 19:29:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 28 Jan 2013 19:29:05 -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 67.192.241.143 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 67.192.241.143 smtp143.dfw.emailsrvr.com Linux 2.6 Received: from [67.192.241.143] ([67.192.241.143:33268] helo=smtp143.dfw.emailsrvr.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id D7/49-28517-081D6015 for ; Mon, 28 Jan 2013 14:29:05 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp24.relay.dfw1a.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id C351A18023B; Mon, 28 Jan 2013 14:29:01 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-Scanned: OK Received: by smtp24.relay.dfw1a.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: smalyshev-AT-sugarcrm.com) with ESMTPSA id 68E75180025; Mon, 28 Jan 2013 14:29:01 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <5106D17D.4070606@sugarcrm.com> Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 11:29:01 -0800 Organization: SugarCRM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130107 Thunderbird/17.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ferenc Kovacs CC: "internals@lists.php.net" , Florian Anderiasch References: <4F8DF4B1.2040307@sugarcrm.com> <4F8F2304.7090402@sugarcrm.com> <4F8F2C50.4080102@sugarcrm.com> <4F90FC23.3000709@anderiasch.de> <4F90FD48.7080601@sugarcrm.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] skipping optional parameters From: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com (Stas Malyshev) Hi! > what is the status of the rfc? > were there any reasons why you didn't called for votes? > Personally I would prefer named parameters also, and I think that we are > too close to the 5.5 feature freeze, but somebody asked why did the > progress stopped and I don't think that there were any showstopper issues. There are some issues with making internal functions compatible with this and fixing all the tests, and I didn't have enough time to get through it yet. I hope to get back to it in the near future, but probably not in time for 5.5 if its schedule stays as it is now. The concept is basically done but there are all kinds of cleanups to be done and tests to be fixed and so on and it takes time, unfortunately. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227