Hi! > Yes, they complement one another. Both exist because of horrible > APIs. But I don’t think we should encourage horrible APIs.
You can create horrible APIs with this, but you can also create them without this. This doesn't make it any more likely, it just makes working with optional parameters easier. > For well-designed functions, there is no need to skip parameters, > either with a default keyword or with named parameters. I disagree with that and in general I disagree with the stance "I don't need this so the language does not need that". We can and should have a wider look than personal needs and preferences. There are many cases where optional parameters have their place, and making them more convenient is a good thing. As a witness to that, most of the languages with this syntax model (I'm not talking about the likes of Lisp of course) do allow optional parameters, and making it easy to work with them is a very frequently requested (and implemented) feature. You can, of course, say these all people are wrong and their code is horrible, but this is the reality of what people want and what they use. They'll do it whether you like it or not, but with this RFC it would be less painful. For me, it is a clear win. -- Stas Malyshev smalys...@gmail.com -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
