Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:71084 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 81491 invoked from network); 12 Jan 2014 11:22:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 12 Jan 2014 11:22:56 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=bof@bof.de; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=bof@bof.de; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain bof.de designates 80.242.145.70 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: bof@bof.de X-Host-Fingerprint: 80.242.145.70 mars.intermailgate.com Received: from [80.242.145.70] ([80.242.145.70:52756] helo=mars.intermailgate.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id E8/31-09546-F0B72D25 for ; Sun, 12 Jan 2014 06:22:56 -0500 Received: (qmail 2382 invoked by uid 1009); 12 Jan 2014 12:22:52 +0100 Received: from 209.85.128.43 by mars (envelope-from , uid 89) with qmail-scanner-1.25-st-qms (clamdscan: 0.96.2/18339. spamassassin: 3.3.1. perlscan: 1.25-st-qms. Clear:RC:1(209.85.128.43):. Processed in 0.067383 secs); 12 Jan 2014 11:22:52 -0000 X-Antivirus-MYDOMAIN-Mail-From: bof@bof.de via mars X-Antivirus-MYDOMAIN: 1.25-st-qms (Clear:RC:1(209.85.128.43):. Processed in 0.067383 secs Process 2370) Received: from mail-qe0-f43.google.com (gmail@bof.de@209.85.128.43) by mars.intermailgate.com with RC4-SHA encrypted SMTP; 12 Jan 2014 12:22:52 +0100 Received: by mail-qe0-f43.google.com with SMTP id jy17so6049477qeb.16 for ; Sun, 12 Jan 2014 03:22:50 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=O6cLoxt70izbpNU+u21I7oayUxkdgOjAI8ZZ1OZq4Lk=; b=aSaKlIH6N5wrFRWcxTJ3+lMxhOcRysaB/mIxK38lp+hYNQLGDzA1t0cT3om2evuXSl Iz5r5186DyBMvXrMNbc7Ueme/jvM1EENwSNmKjnKQTbaCofUIKBBz7GN1PFK7gAqXCGH wByLAHJII9kEumC7Rc+GRQW51ZpPVoqXQAMxyjfVvzMN7Bfz43jYMcwnSMEiUEvRNLJ8 tEpidHVCQFsTINMfDrIqCjn1QqcCGqT8DeQ3btu74EcfWASkPEEiAmSTFvSKOC/I6KPB wRB8CRVKcAU7uD/uP+5Hg51qStDLk1m4KlM2aRvbNBMLnQrh4fXFqoEDl90teoUyeQOs SeoQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.224.43.72 with SMTP id v8mr27881141qae.52.1389525770943; Sun, 12 Jan 2014 03:22:50 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.140.84.175 with HTTP; Sun, 12 Jan 2014 03:22:50 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.140.84.175 with HTTP; Sun, 12 Jan 2014 03:22:50 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <52D265EE.3010608@lsces.co.uk> References: <581A185E-0F00-4B49-AA87-859D75E63BA2@googlemail.com> <52D265EE.3010608@lsces.co.uk> Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2014 12:22:50 +0100 Message-ID: To: Lester Caine Cc: internals Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bdc9f70fbc35904efc42d82 Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Revisiting the "Named Arguments" RFC From: bof@bof.de (Patrick Schaaf) --047d7bdc9f70fbc35904efc42d82 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Am 12.01.2014 10:50 schrieb "Lester Caine" : > > Patrick Schaaf wrote: >> >> First of all, I'd love seeing this feature in PHP, and it would be a very >> large incentive to upgrade to 5.6 asap when it would be included (without >> bugs of course:) > > > I simply have to ask. What do you think this will actually give you productivity wise? Proper call-site elision of uninteresting, should-stay-at-their-defaults arguments. Better call-site readability because the options in use will be named explicitly. I have four or five places in our internal codebase where the $options-array approach is already used for these reasons, and where we feel the pain of explicitly managing that that is nicely described in the RFC. best regards Patrick --047d7bdc9f70fbc35904efc42d82--