Re: Re: Named arguments revisited

Hartmut Holzgraefe wrote:

Lukas Smith wrote:

- all internal and PECL functions need to be recoded as the API right now doesn't know any concept of parameter names at all

I was thinking that this would a userland only feature.

do we really want to add even more inconsistencies to the language?

Its a choice you make when you define your signature and you always need to check the signature before you call a function using named parameters to know the names of the parameters. Adding this to functions that do not fall into the category of having 5+ parameters, especially internal ones, would indeed be a horror scenario. I would therefore even suggest to make it a binary choice. As in the function does either named parameters or by order. Its sole purpose is to deal with situations where you have a considerable number of parameters. I am not aware of internal functions that fit this criteria. I am not sure if we need to forbid internal functions to use named parameters (as long as its a binary choice). But if we keep it binary I do not see it adding confusion. Its certainly less confusing than having to use some array format that is hard to document properly. regards, Lukas