Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:71087
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.214.177 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <002501cf0fa4$20cbbcf0$626336d0$@tutteli.ch>
References: <581A185E-0F00-4B49-AA87-859D75E63BA2@googlemail.com>
	<002501cf0fa4$20cbbcf0$626336d0$@tutteli.ch>
Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2014 16:49:12 +0100
Message-ID: <CAF+90c-qr-iAV9Hq5bMVrrO-RxsZQqN0+XasKwuBGBaUDLgj=w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Robert Stoll <php@tutteli.ch>
Cc: Kevin Ingwersen <ingwie2000@googlemail.com>, PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01160600918e8104efc7e6e1
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Revisiting the "Named Arguments" RFC
From: nikita.ppv@gmail.com (Nikita Popov)

--089e01160600918e8104efc7e6e1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 3:39 PM, Robert Stoll <php@tutteli.ch> wrote:

> Since the RFC has not included my concerns so far I am going to bring them
> up again. The included validation of
> signatures is a huge BC break and thus a no-go for PHP 5.x IMO:
>
> http://markmail.org/message/blcph3p377x4ycmc#query:+page:1+mid:jtfa52bzgsua7yrt+state:results
>
> http://markmail.org/message/blcph3p377x4ycmc#query:+page:1+mid:u5y2pvzttbudkxqe+state:results


Kindly reread the RFC and my last message in this thread. The RFC states
the signature validation as an "open question" and my last mail states that
it was decided not to include signature validation. So where did you get
the idea of it being "included"?

Nikita

--089e01160600918e8104efc7e6e1--