Is it a choice to not use named capture in Route.php ?
Or I can do it for better read ?

I'm sorry I don't get this feature, can you expand on what this provides?
Currently, you can have a route with with both{id:foo} and{slug:foo}.
What else do you need?

I need a route with {id:foo} and {id:bar}

Why? From a routing PoV, that's undefined: how would you generate just a route for example?

that's my proposal, instead of {id:foo} and {id:bar} witch can be impossible, I can have {fooId:foo.id} and {barId:bar.id}.
my route function can have function myRoute( Foo $foo, Bar $bar) and autogenerate them,
and I can generate a route with ['fooId' => 2, 'barId' => 5]

IIUC, this use case can me handled by:{fooId:foo} and{barId:bar}
function myRoute(Foo $foo, Bar $bar)
{{ path('my_route', { fooId: 1, barId: 1 }) =>my_route/1/1

You do not need to alias anything, just use the proper name for ids.

it's just a shortcut to not write Many Map Entity to map alias with field name

IIUC, this use case can me handled by:{fooId:foo} and{barId:bar}function myRoute(Foo $foo, Bar $bar){{ path('my_route', { fooId: 1, barId: 1 }) =>my_route/1/1

You do not need to alias anything, just use the proper name for ids.

If your field is id in both classes you must add a mapentity for each arguments.

I just found it quicker to write, and not have to put an attribute to each argument witch is less readable IMO

The description of the PR should be improved IMHO.
I updated it a bit to use slugs instead of random foo/bar; This should help but it's not enough.
Using the example of "id" in the comments doesn't help either: id is already a special field so you don't need to name it.
It'd suggest providing a before/after example with something more concrete to make it more obvious what this is about.
Before: with MapEntity mapping, After: the new shorter way that's being proposed.

Do you prefer this new description ?

Thank you@eltharin.