On 6 September 2013 09:39, Nikita Popov <nikita....@gmail.com> wrote:
> The RFC and implementation are not yet complete. I mainly want to have
> feedback on the idea in general and on the Open Questions (
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/named_params#open_questions) in particular.
Thanks for proposing this. I haven't looked at the patch yet, but I'm
all for the feature.
My thoughts on your open questions:
Syntax: I suspect this will end up having to go to a vote (classic
bikeshed), but I'm on the func('foo' => 'bar') train. :foo doesn't
make sense in a PHP context (we'd have to implement that across the
language, not just for function calls), : as a key-value separator
would only work if it was also supported in array literals, and =
feels a little wrong for this. I don't really like the unquoted
parameter names so much; it's inconsistent with array literals and
bare words as strings is something that's been discouraged for a long
time.
Variadics/splat: collecting both named and positional arguments into
one array seems reasonable to me. I think the main use case there
would be option parameters, which you'd have to validate anyway, so
positional parameters would be dealt with at that point — I don't see
separate arrays as conferring any great advantage in terms of
validating parameters, and it's no simpler conceptually.
call_user_func_array: for consistency, we might want to consider
adding an analogue function that deals with named parameters, even
though it would work via $callable(...$kwargs).
Contracts: I agree with you, basically — it would have to be an
E_STRICT or thereabouts, with the possibility of revisiting come a
hypothetical PHP 6.
Adam
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
