RE: [PHP-DEV] Revisiting the "Named Arguments" RFC

Hey Nikita > -----Original Message----- > From: Nikita Popov [mailto:nikita.ppv@gmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2014 4:49 PM > To: Robert Stoll > Cc: Kevin Ingwersen; PHP internals > Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Revisiting the "Named Arguments" RFC > > On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 3:39 PM, Robert Stoll <php@tutteli.ch> wrote: > > > Since the RFC has not included my concerns so far I am going to bring them > > up again. The included validation of > > signatures is a huge BC break and thus a no-go for PHP 5.x IMO: > > > > > > http://markmail.org/message/blcph3p377x4ycmc#query:+page:1+mid:jtfa52bzgsua7yrt+state:results > > > > > > http://markmail.org/message/blcph3p377x4ycmc#query:+page:1+mid:u5y2pvzttbudkxqe+state:results > > > Kindly reread the RFC and my last message in this thread. The RFC states > the signature validation as an "open question" and my last mail states that > it was decided not to include signature validation. So where did you get > the idea of it being "included"? > > Nikita I did, unless it is not an error in my browser the section "open question" is empty. I do not know which last email you mean but anyway the RFC (https://wiki.php.net/rfc/named_params) still states: "If named parameters are introduced, signature validation should make sure that parameter names are not changed. Usually signature mismatches between an interface and an implementing class throw a fatal error, but this is not possible in this case due to the large BC break it would cause. Instead we could use some lower error type for this (warning / notice / strict)." Did you open another RFC?