Comments on: Calling functions with named arguments http://loveandtheft.org/2008/03/23/reflection-calling-methodsfunctions-with-named-arguments/ Mr Quinn, one word for your fans? "Ehm, astronaut." Fri, 21 Nov 2008 04:18:28 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: Life according to Gordon » Blog Archive » No, PHP does not suck; YOU suck http://loveandtheft.org/2008/03/23/reflection-calling-methodsfunctions-with-named-arguments/#comment-426 Life according to Gordon » Blog Archive » No, PHP does not suck; YOU suck Thu, 05 Jun 2008 05:25:41 +0000 http://loveandtheft.org/2008/03/23/reflection-calling-methodsfunctions-with-named-arguments/#comment-426 [...] makes a difference (first parameter, second parameter, etc.). A little while back I saw a really neat implementation of calling functions with named arguments, that I've actually extended a bit on my own using [...] […] makes a difference (first parameter, second parameter, etc.). A little while back I saw a really neat implementation of calling functions with named arguments, that I’ve actually extended a bit on my own using […]

]]> By: Fredrik Holmström http://loveandtheft.org/2008/03/23/reflection-calling-methodsfunctions-with-named-arguments/#comment-7 Fredrik Holmström Tue, 25 Mar 2008 18:18:10 +0000 http://loveandtheft.org/2008/03/23/reflection-calling-methodsfunctions-with-named-arguments/#comment-7 Well the first argument that I can come up with is that it the function signature looks a lot cleaner, and the default values are easier to spot then with a $func_args = array_merge($default, $func_args)-call. The array_key_exists (or well, personally I would use isset()) approach isn't viable unless you have complete control over the source of the functions, plus it pollutes the function code with things it shouldn't have to care about. Well the first argument that I can come up with is that it the function signature looks a lot cleaner, and the default values are easier to spot then with a $func_args = array_merge($default, $func_args)-call.

The array_key_exists (or well, personally I would use isset()) approach isn’t viable unless you have complete control over the source of the functions, plus it pollutes the function code with things it shouldn’t have to care about.

]]> By: bucky http://loveandtheft.org/2008/03/23/reflection-calling-methodsfunctions-with-named-arguments/#comment-6 bucky Tue, 25 Mar 2008 17:47:10 +0000 http://loveandtheft.org/2008/03/23/reflection-calling-methodsfunctions-with-named-arguments/#comment-6 hmm, how about you just pass an array to begin with, and check inside of your func for array_key_exists. work with the language instead of against it lol! hmm, how about you just pass an array to begin with, and check inside of your func for array_key_exists. work with the language instead of against it lol!

]]>