Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:68867 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 8036 invoked from network); 2 Sep 2013 21:15:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 2 Sep 2013 21:15:12 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=rstoll@tutteli.ch; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=rstoll@tutteli.ch; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain tutteli.ch designates 80.74.154.78 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: rstoll@tutteli.ch X-Host-Fingerprint: 80.74.154.78 ns73.kreativmedia.ch Linux 2.6 Received: from [80.74.154.78] ([80.74.154.78:43021] helo=hyperion.kreativmedia.ch) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 42/DE-29856-DDFF4225 for ; Mon, 02 Sep 2013 17:15:11 -0400 Received: (qmail 15811 invoked from network); 2 Sep 2013 23:15:06 +0200 Received: from 235-205.63-188.cust.bluewin.ch (HELO RoLaptop) (188.63.205.235) by ns73.kreativmedia.ch with (AES128-SHA encrypted) SMTP; 2 Sep 2013 23:15:06 +0200 To: "'Stas Malyshev'" , "'Nikita Popov'" Cc: "'PHP Internals'" References: <52243BA6.5040905@sugarcrm.com> <5224F0FB.9080506@sugarcrm.com> In-Reply-To: <5224F0FB.9080506@sugarcrm.com> Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2013 23:15:05 +0200 Message-ID: <005a01cea821$7f0a9470$7d1fbd50$@tutteli.ch> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQGVucwNBrtZcrj7xRm/8nes4cZsHQIgCEwyATLZFl2aCjZQ0A== Content-Language: de-ch Subject: AW: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Skipping parameters take 2 From: rstoll@tutteli.ch ("Robert Stoll") Hi Stanislav I would not agree with your argument that it should be introduced = because it is requested by real people for years and it is simple to add. Isn't = that pretty much the same as "because we can"? IMO we should wait with this RFC if Nikita is willing to write an RFC = for named parameters including an implementation afterwards, because I think named parameters would address the problem way better. The skipping parameters as in your proposal would then just be the ugly alternative. However, if the RFC for named parameters will not be created or = rejected, then I would appreciate your RFC. Best, Robert -----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht----- Von: Stas Malyshev [mailto:smalyshev@sugarcrm.com]=20 Gesendet: Montag, 2. September 2013 22:12 An: Nikita Popov Cc: PHP Internals Betreff: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Skipping parameters take 2 Hi! > I think this doesn't really help readability. Right now you should=20 > implement functions with many options with an $options array. I don't understand. Who says I should do that? I certainly don't see how = I should. > If we want to change something here, we should skip this step and go=20 > right for named arguments. I think I'll give implementing them a try. If you are ready to present named args proposal for 5.6, fine. But if = not, I think denying obviously requested feature (see links for requests in the RFC) because some "pie in the sky" consideration is completely wrong. I must say it seems a little strange for me given current stream of = "because we can" syntax additions proposed to reject something that has been = asked for by real people for years just because sometime in the future we = might or might not have something that may do a similar thing in different way. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227 -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, = visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php