Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:68917
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.192.172 as permitted sender)
References: <CAF+90c85v_VTPTPanBcTJ70Ff6pm6fRgAGs4n1uoaA+B9UZg=w@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
In-Reply-To: <CAF+90c85v_VTPTPanBcTJ70Ff6pm6fRgAGs4n1uoaA+B9UZg=w@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <99686CF9-F3A7-419C-B3C2-DA2148D9CEA0@gmail.com>
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2013 10:47:26 -0700
To: Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Named parameters
From: mike503@gmail.com (Michael Shadle)

+1 to named params. Please please please. :)

=3D> is my vote for syntax. Makes sense. Doesn't make sense to introduce ano=
ther way to express something we've been used to for years with key =3D> val=
ue, and is it that important to save one character per assignment?

On Sep 6, 2013, at 9:39 AM, Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi internals!
>=20
> I created an RFC and preliminary implementation for named parameters:
>=20
>    https://wiki.php.net/rfc/named_params
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> Thanks,
> Nikita