Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:71083
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain googlemail.com designates 74.125.83.45 as permitted sender)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_FCE51F4A-963A-4EFA-BB1C-4C3345C7B278"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.0 \(1822\))
In-Reply-To: <CAF+90c8L7WP8Hch=DSWKD6Hb_=1=aKMzj49-1_eTbCgjwDNPWA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2014 11:32:05 +0100
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Message-ID: <1590F2FF-C0E2-4306-AB82-DDB095FFFE02@googlemail.com>
References: <581A185E-0F00-4B49-AA87-859D75E63BA2@googlemail.com> <CAF+90c8L7WP8Hch=DSWKD6Hb_=1=aKMzj49-1_eTbCgjwDNPWA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Revisiting the "Named Arguments" RFC
From: ingwie2000@googlemail.com (Kevin Ingwersen)

--Apple-Mail=_FCE51F4A-963A-4EFA-BB1C-4C3345C7B278
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=windows-1252

Cool! Hopefuly it=92ll make it some day - that=92d be very useful to =
have. :3
Am So. Jan. 12 2014 11:27:22 schrieb Nikita Popov:

> On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 4:42 PM, Kevin Ingwersen =
<ingwie2000@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Hello there.
>=20
> Within one of the recent votes, I was reminded upon an RFC for named =
parameters/arguments - to be exact, this one: =
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/named_params
>=20
> I just wanted to know if this RFC is still in discussion, has been =
dropped, or what else is currently being up with it. Because in my =
opinion, that=92d be a very useful addition - as many modern languages =
support this kind of feature already. The only language that I personaly =
am using that supports that is Objective-C - and in there, it is very =
useful. Although its quite different - it=92s a different call-style =
entirely - I could imagine the implementation from the link above to be =
very useful in PHP.
>=20
> It would be great to know the current state of the RFC, as I didn=92t =
really see anything of its current state on the page itself.
>=20
> A quick summary:
>=20
> The open questions are mostly resolved, namely: Variadics / unpacking =
on named args should use same syntax as for not-named args. No signature =
checks should be introduced, instead use runtime errors. The question of =
syntax wasn't yet entirely clear, though that's something one could just =
vote, if need be.
>=20
> The patch itself is also finished from the "general feature =
implementation" side. What is missing are updates to internal functions. =
Namely all arginfo structs should be made consistent across functions =
and synced with the docs. Also we need to ensure that argument parsing =
for internal functions works correctly everywhere.
>=20
> Feature freeze for 5.6 is in two months and the last two points =
require a huge amount of work (because of the sheer number of functions =
in our standard library). I started a bit on the arginfo part, by =
updating the parameter names for array functions in the docs, but didn't =
continue that effort as other things got in the way. I don't think I'll =
have enough time to finish this before 5.6 FF.
>=20
> So, likely this will be postponed to the next version of PHP ;)
>=20
> Nikita



--Apple-Mail=_FCE51F4A-963A-4EFA-BB1C-4C3345C7B278--