On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 2:11 PM, Stas Malyshev <smalys...@sugarcrm.com>wrote:
> Hi! > > > I think this doesn't really help readability. Right now you should > > implement functions with many options with an $options array. > > I don't understand. Who says I should do that? I certainly don't see how > I should. > > > If we want to change something here, we should skip this step and go > > right for named arguments. I think I'll give implementing them a try. > > If you are ready to present named args proposal for 5.6, fine. But if > not, I think denying obviously requested feature (see links for requests > in the RFC) because some "pie in the sky" consideration is completely > wrong. > > I must say it seems a little strange for me given current stream of > "because we can" syntax additions proposed to reject something that has > been asked for by real people for years just because sometime in the > future we might or might not have something that may do a similar thing > in different way. > -- > 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 > >
