Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:68868 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 10166 invoked from network); 2 Sep 2013 21:34:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 2 Sep 2013 21:34:51 -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 108.166.43.107 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 108.166.43.107 smtp107.ord1c.emailsrvr.com Linux 2.6 Received: from [108.166.43.107] ([108.166.43.107:52133] helo=smtp107.ord1c.emailsrvr.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id F9/3F-29856-A7405225 for ; Mon, 02 Sep 2013 17:34:50 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp6.relay.ord1c.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 421AC98F8D; Mon, 2 Sep 2013 17:34:48 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: OK Received: by smtp6.relay.ord1c.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: smalyshev-AT-sugarcrm.com) with ESMTPSA id CC0C898F88; Mon, 2 Sep 2013 17:34:47 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <52250477.2060803@sugarcrm.com> Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2013 14:34:47 -0700 Organization: SugarCRM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Robert Stoll CC: 'Nikita Popov' , 'PHP Internals' References: <52243BA6.5040905@sugarcrm.com> <5224F0FB.9080506@sugarcrm.com> <005a01cea821$7f0a9470$7d1fbd50$@tutteli.ch> In-Reply-To: <005a01cea821$7f0a9470$7d1fbd50$@tutteli.ch> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: AW: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Skipping parameters take 2 From: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com (Stas Malyshev) Hi! > 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"? No, it is pretty much the opposite. It is "because people need it". > 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 We've been talking about it for years (last time here: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/namedparameters) but nothing happened. But I'm certainly willing to give it a chance, if it is happening. I just not want for all the effort to be wasted if it's not and we'd be left without a solution for a real problem again. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227