Hi again,
There's been a lot of No votes on this RFC, but I haven't received much
feedback as to why. Would any of you mind sharing your reasons, if
possible? It would be helpful if I knew why people have voted against
it, as then I might be able to modify the RFC to be more palatable, or
und
Morning internalz,
As mentioned the future scope stuff is scary, but not enough on it's
own to vote no.
So I want to vote yes, but I'm just waiting to hear objections from no
voters, in case they thought of something I didn't ...
Cheers
Joe
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 8:18 PM, Andrea Faulds
Here is my reasons for no:
1- Non-intuitive behavior
2- Hard to read code, takes more time to understand underlying logic/flow
3- YAANPI => Yet Another Alternate Named Parameters Implementation (when I
look at future scope)
4- Most common usage form (first example) still forces you to type almost
Morning,
1 - I'm not completely certain what you are referring too ... list() has
always felt a bit strange to me and this doesn't feel any stranger imo.
2 - Perhaps I agree, but perhaps I tend to think that it's because I'm
not used to looking at it yet.
3 - This isn't relevant at the mo
