Re: [RFC] Skipping parameters take 2

Hi! > -1 on this proposal > > +1 on named parameters Come on, we've already talked about it like 20 times and it has special paragraph in the RFC dedicated exactly to this. It's not instead named params, we can do both. > Pierrick and I both implemented this support for Annotations back in 2010. > Maybe it's worth to look into that patch for some ideas. Annotations are great and I'd like them to be resurrected (provided that we don't get bogged down again with "let's implement a Turing-complete DSL for for ORMs inside annotations because we have like 1 or even 2 use cases for it!") but how it is relevant to the topic or to named params? That said, if you want to branch the topic and discuss it it's fine, just please change the subj. -- Stas Malyshev smalyshev@gmail.com