[pgrouting-users] RFC3 Positional and named parameters on pgRouting functions

[Dave Potts]

Can we ensure that the following issues are taken care of

Its clearly explained how to port old code to use the new systems for the
last years worth of releases.
Any attempt to use old signature method name with a new signature some
results in some type of massive error along the lines your need to update
you code.
The current documentation is updated.
Any new code or code that is being developed  has to use the new methods

There is a lot of old code out there, we need a clear method of ensure it
can be updated by somebody who has never seen pgrouting before

On Wed, 24 Oct 2018 at 19:44, Vicky Vergara <vicky at georepublic.de> wrote:

> Dear Users and developers
>
> We would like to hear your feedback about:
> Positional and named parameters on pgRouting functions
> That is described here:
> https://github.com/pgRouting/admin/wiki/RFC3
>
> The aim is to enforce positional notation on compulsory parameters and
> allow named notation on optional parameters
> That enforcement would take place on version 3.0.0 scheduled to be
> released on September 2019.
>
> We will appreciate your feedback.
>
> Regards
>
> The pgRouting team
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Georepublic UG (haftungsbeschränkt)
> Salzmannstraße 44,
> 81739 München, Germany
>
> Vicky Vergara
> Operations Research
>
> eMail: vicky at georepublic.de
> Web: https://georepublic.info
>
> Tel: +49 (089) 4161 7698-1
> Fax: +49 (089) 4161 7698-9
>
> Commercial register: Amtsgericht München, HRB 181428
> CEO: Daniel Kastl
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pgrouting-users mailing list
> Pgrouting-users at lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/pgrouting-users
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/pgrouting-users/attachments/20181025/a8be2894/attachment.html>