Hi! > Default parameters and unpassed parameters enter the scene because it's > idiomatic to pass NULL to have the same effect as not passing that > parameter.
Actually, as it never worked with int parameters, I'd not really call it idiomatic just yet. I was just thinking - since we have basically no code relying on this, why introduce rather artificial concept of "null means no parameter" (which I'm sure won't work in all cases and won't be expected in all cases) if we can have perfectly good concept "default means no parameter" which won't clash with any existing code? Note that this still will require something like l! - I'm actually working right now on finding all the places we have something like this for my default params patch - so I agree with that part of the argument. I'm just not sure adding that semantics to null is the best idea, since null can be a variable value and having something like mb_substr($foo, 0, $this->length) suddenly behave differently when $this->length is null would be somewhat unexpected effect. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227 -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
