RE: [PHP-DEV] Revisiting the "Named Arguments" RFC
Hey Nikita
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nikita Popov [mailto:[email protected]]
> 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 <[email protected]> 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?
Thread (29 messages)