Why not just wrap the function in another function? On Sat, 6 Apr 2019 at 23:46, Morgan Breden <morganbre...@gmail.com> wrote: > > The problem I see with this approach is that a keyword for skipping > parameters > would really just be a stopgap solution until something like Named > Parameters > can be added. > > Is it really appropriate to add a feature that only serves a temporary > purpose? > > On Sat, Apr 6, 2019 at 5:15 PM Craig Duncan <p...@duncanc.co.uk> wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > After starting to use https://wiki.php.net/rfc/json_throw_on_error in PHP > > 7.3 I've encountered the annoying issue of having to pass the $depth > > parameter as 512 every time I want json_decode() to throw. > > > > After doing this a few times I remembered the parameter skipping RFC that > > Stas proposed a few years ago: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/skipparams > > > > I've re-read the previous discussion and it seems to me there were two > > common arguments against: > > * Just design better APIs > > * Named parameters would be better > > > > Nobody has been able to crack named parameters (and it doesn't seem likely > > anytime soon), and as we've seen from the JSON example above it's not > > always as simple as having better APIs, so I wanted to see whether people > > would be willing to support the *default* keyword for optional parameters > > now. > > > > Thanks, > > Craig > >
-- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
