Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] skipping optional parameters

2013-01-28 Thread Stas Malyshev
Hi! > what is the status of the rfc? > were there any reasons why you didn't called for votes? > Personally I would prefer named parameters also, and I think that we are > too close to the 5.5 feature freeze, but somebody asked why did the > progress stopped and I don't think that there were any s

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] skipping optional parameters

2013-01-28 Thread Ferenc Kovacs
2012.04.20. 8:08, "Stas Malyshev" ezt írta: > > Hi! > > > I can't estimate the amount of breakage, but what about using underscore > > (literal _) without quotation marks? > > This one is taken. See: http://us2.php.net/_ > > -- > Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect > SugarCRM: http://www.sugarc

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] skipping optional parameters

2012-04-19 Thread Stas Malyshev
Hi! > I can't estimate the amount of breakage, but what about using underscore > (literal _) without quotation marks? This one is taken. See: http://us2.php.net/_ -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227 -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] skipping optional parameters

2012-04-19 Thread Florian Anderiasch
On 04/18/2012 11:04 PM, Stas Malyshev wrote: > Hi! > >> "default" is already a reserved keyword. It's used in switch >> constructs. So it is safe to use :) > > Ah, silly me, indeed it is. Then I guess it doesn't hurt to add it as an > option. Will do. I can't estimate the amount of breakage, but

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] skipping optional parameters

2012-04-19 Thread Matthew Weier O'Phinney
On 2012-04-19, Patrick ALLAERT wrote: > 2012/4/18 Matthew Weier O'Phinney : > > My one comment, which others have raised, is readability of multiple > > commas -- TBH, at first glance it has the appearance of a mistake. I > > think those suggesting a keyword such as "default" make a good point in

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] skipping optional parameters

2012-04-19 Thread Patrick ALLAERT
2012/4/18 Matthew Weier O'Phinney : > My one comment, which others have raised, is readability of multiple > commas -- TBH, at first glance it has the appearance of a mistake. I > think those suggesting a keyword such as "default" make a good point in > this regard -- it makes it 100% clear that yo

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] skipping optional parameters

2012-04-18 Thread Stas Malyshev
Hi! > "default" is already a reserved keyword. It's used in switch > constructs. So it is safe to use :) Ah, silly me, indeed it is. Then I guess it doesn't hurt to add it as an option. Will do. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] skipping optional parameters

2012-04-18 Thread Nikita Popov
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 10:24 PM, Stas Malyshev wrote: > Hi! > >> My one comment, which others have raised, is readability of multiple >> commas -- TBH, at first glance it has the appearance of a mistake. I >> think those suggesting a keyword such as "default" make a good point in >> this regard -

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] skipping optional parameters

2012-04-18 Thread Stas Malyshev
Hi! > My one comment, which others have raised, is readability of multiple > commas -- TBH, at first glance it has the appearance of a mistake. I > think those suggesting a keyword such as "default" make a good point in > this regard -- it makes it 100% clear that you want the default value I wou

[PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] skipping optional parameters

2012-04-18 Thread Matthew Weier O'Phinney
On 2012-04-17, Stas Malyshev wrote: > One of the annoying things I've encountered in working with PHP was > dealing with functions having long optional parameter lists, especially > if you need to change only the last one - you have to copy all the > defaults. Full named params implementation woul