Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:68914
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain adamharvey.name designates 209.85.223.182 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: adam@adamharvey.name
In-Reply-To: <CAF+90c85v_VTPTPanBcTJ70Ff6pm6fRgAGs4n1uoaA+B9UZg=w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAF+90c85v_VTPTPanBcTJ70Ff6pm6fRgAGs4n1uoaA+B9UZg=w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2013 10:25:34 -0700
Message-ID: <CADajX4Dv2eC_d-BQCqHyY8G6AiPyHuG1TcDPcdgSYAz0DYnMJA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com>
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Named parameters
From: aharvey@php.net (Adam Harvey)

On 6 September 2013 09:39, Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com> wrote:
> The RFC and implementation are not yet complete. I mainly want to have
> feedback on the idea in general and on the Open Questions (
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/named_params#open_questions) in particular.

Thanks for proposing this. I haven't looked at the patch yet, but I'm
all for the feature.

My thoughts on your open questions:

Syntax: I suspect this will end up having to go to a vote (classic
bikeshed), but I'm on the func('foo' =3D> 'bar') train. :foo doesn't
make sense in a PHP context (we'd have to implement that across the
language, not just for function calls), : as a key-value separator
would only work if it was also supported in array literals, and =3D
feels a little wrong for this. I don't really like the unquoted
parameter names so much; it's inconsistent with array literals and
bare words as strings is something that's been discouraged for a long
time.

Variadics/splat: collecting both named and positional arguments into
one array seems reasonable to me. I think the main use case there
would be option parameters, which you'd have to validate anyway, so
positional parameters would be dealt with at that point =E2=80=94 I don't s=
ee
separate arrays as conferring any great advantage in terms of
validating parameters, and it's no simpler conceptually.

call_user_func_array: for consistency, we might want to consider
adding an analogue function that deals with named parameters, even
though it would work via $callable(...$kwargs).

Contracts: I agree with you, basically =E2=80=94 it would have to be an
E_STRICT or thereabouts, with the possibility of revisiting come a
hypothetical PHP 6.

Adam