Hello guys,
What is the current status of the named params implementation (RFC [1])?
According to RFC it's under discussion and proposed for 5.6 release. Can we
really expect this feature in 5.6 release? The change will provide the great
boost of code readability.
Looking forward for reply.
--
WBR,
Gleb Golubitsky AKA Sectoid
Jabber ID: sectoid@gnolltech.com
What is the current status of the named params implementation (RFC [1])?
Forgot the link to the actual RFC.
[1] - https://wiki.php.net/rfc/named_params
--
WBR,
Gleb Golubitsky AKA Sectoid
Jabber ID: sectoid@gnolltech.com
Hello guys,
What is the current status of the named params implementation (RFC [1])?
According to RFC it's under discussion and proposed for 5.6 release. Can we
really expect this feature in 5.6 release? The change will provide the great
boost of code readability.Looking forward for reply.
It won't be in PHP 5.6. There's no timeline for it that I've seen.
There are various discussions that show the project still has supporters.
Chris
--
christopher.jones@oracle.com http://twitter.com/ghrd
Free PHP & Oracle book:
http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/topics/php/underground-php-oracle-manual-098250.html
What is the current status of the named params implementation (RFC [1])?
According to RFC it's under discussion and proposed for 5.6 release. Can
we
really expect this feature in 5.6 release? The change will provide the
great boost of code readability.It won't be in PHP 5.6. There's no timeline for it that I've seen.
Sad to hear so. What exactly stops from having it in the mainline?
There are various discussions that show the project still has supporters.
And can I help somehow with getting this changes up and merged?
WBR,
Gleb Golubitsky AKA Sectoid
Jabber ID: sectoid@gnolltech.com
Also would LOVE to see this, it's a MASSIVE feature to have.
Thank you for your time,
Mark 'Dygear' Tomlin.
What is the current status of the named params implementation (RFC [1])?
According to RFC it's under discussion and proposed for 5.6 release. Can
we
really expect this feature in 5.6 release? The change will provide the
great boost of code readability.It won't be in PHP 5.6. There's no timeline for it that I've seen.
Sad to hear so. What exactly stops from having it in the mainline?
There are various discussions that show the project still has supporters.
And can I help somehow with getting this changes up and merged?
WBR,
Gleb Golubitsky AKA Sectoid
Jabber ID: sectoid@gnolltech.com
Sad to hear so. What exactly stops from having it in the mainline?
While the named parameters implementation works, we'd need to update the function info headers for every single internal function, and make sure it matches the documentation. I think Nikita simply doesn’t have the time on his hands.
--
Andrea Faulds
http://ajf.me/
Sad to hear so. What exactly stops from having it in the mainline?
While the named parameters implementation works, we'd need to update the
function info headers for every single internal function, and make sure it
matches the documentation. I think Nikita simply doesn’t have the time on
his hands.
Can I help somehow with this task? I'm familiar with C and PHP development,
but don't know PHP internals well (yet? :)). So if I can help - I'll do my
best to speed up the process.
--
WBR,
Gleb Golubitsky AKA Sectoid
Jabber ID: sectoid@gnolltech.com
On Saturday 22 February 2014 14:25:07 Andrea Faulds wrote:
Sad to hear so. What exactly stops from having it in the mainline?
While the named parameters implementation works, we'd need to update the
function info headers for every single internal function, and make sure it
matches the documentation. I think Nikita simply doesn’t have the time on
his hands.
I know that I said it more nicely before.... That is stupidity.
Just release the feature for user code (self-written functions and methods).
Create a suitable variation of the internals function declaration macros that
expresses "this function has been vetted for named parameter usage, and refuse
to accept named parameters (FATAL) for any function not so vetted.
Then let the internal function vetting proceed at whatever pace it takes,
later.
If you first wait for each and every internal (and extension?) function being
converted, this will never happen.
best regards
Patrick
Am Sa. Feb. 22 2014 17:15:20 schrieb Patrick Schaaf:
On Saturday 22 February 2014 14:25:07 Andrea Faulds wrote:
Sad to hear so. What exactly stops from having it in the mainline?
While the named parameters implementation works, we'd need to update the
function info headers for every single internal function, and make sure it
matches the documentation. I think Nikita simply doesn’t have the time on
his hands.I know that I said it more nicely before.... That is stupidity.
Just release the feature for user code (self-written functions and methods).
Create a suitable variation of the internals function declaration macros that
expresses "this function has been vetted for named parameter usage, and refuse
to accept named parameters (FATAL) for any function not so vetted.Then let the internal function vetting proceed at whatever pace it takes,
later.If you first wait for each and every internal (and extension?) function being
converted, this will never happen.best regards
Patrick
I agree with that post. For most, we can just create our own wrapper functions untill the functions have a real named parameter implementation (has_named_params() ?). The named parameters can then be added from time to time over minimal releases (5.6.?).
I know that I said it more nicely before.... That is stupidity.
Just release the feature for user code (self-written functions and methods).
Create a suitable variation of the internals function declaration macros that
expresses "this function has been vetted for named parameter usage, and refuse
to accept named parameters (FATAL) for any function not so vetted.Then let the internal function vetting proceed at whatever pace it takes,
later.If you first wait for each and every internal (and extension?) function being
converted, this will never happen.
I know. I asked Nikita about this on IRC about a month or two ago. I think he said he just didn’t want to deliver an incomplete feature?
--
Andrea Faulds
http://ajf.me/
I know. I asked Nikita about this on IRC about a month or two ago. I
think he said he just didn’t want to deliver an incomplete feature?
I totally agree with Nikita here. We can't really release named argument
with internals function not being ported.
Cheers,
Pierre