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 <[email protected]>
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
> [email protected]
>
--
Guilherme Blanco
MSN: [email protected]
GTalk: guilhermeblanco
Toronto - ON/Canada