Re: [RFC] Skipping parameters take 2

Hi Stas, As I said, we should look at that patch as we implemented Named Parameters there with everything you mentioned. Cheers, On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 3:23 PM, Stanislav Malyshev <smalyshev@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > -- Guilherme Blanco MSN: guilhermeblanco@hotmail.com GTalk: guilhermeblanco Toronto - ON/Canada