Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:100966
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: softfail (pb1.pair.com: domain golemon.com does not designate 209.85.220.172 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: php@golemon.com
In-Reply-To: <CAPg3Xx+eoCJqHRUY=87NO7CoeQ=JPoMoxCVDGS0gcwcqJ33Eag@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALYT1Yo7+54PZrCQN35s1Vf+9QwfS1fau66vmQDH9SE=t2pFfw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPg3XxJEsBxhBCiBMGmroNQDnPsyTCvp3dLV2X-2t7_fiMcCxA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAESVnVr77jgnLtdRMbHGXDcGMk7U6nBnC4PY=GU+t6+W2qOt4g@mail.gmail.com> <CAPg3Xx+eoCJqHRUY=87NO7CoeQ=JPoMoxCVDGS0gcwcqJ33Eag@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2017 09:46:47 -0400
Message-ID: <CAESVnVosMmwDJPEuUtqqggy9YRjSXTTzd5+VuirsV9FewwgiLQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Peter Cowburn <petercowburn@gmail.com>
Cc: Sammy Kaye Powers <me@sammyk.me>, PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Discussion] Allow a trailing comma in function calls
From: pollita@php.net (Sara Golemon)

On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 7:17 AM, Peter Cowburn <petercowburn@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 24 October 2017 at 17:14, Sara Golemon <pollita@php.net> wrote:
>> I'd guess because those are the only constructs which appear
>> function-like *and* exhibit variadic behavior.
>>
>> empty/die/exit/print/require/include/require_once/include_once/__HALT_COMPILER
>> don't have a variadic mode so allowing trailing commas in them would
>> be pointless.
>
> That's a fair point, then maybe we should consider declare() too?
>
Perhaps, but since we've already entered voting, it'll have to be a
separate RFC at this point.  That, or we reset and I don't think it's
worthwhile for declare because it's only got three possible values,
all of which can easily fit a single line.

> Also, I
> know that "echo" is a "doesn't even look like a function" but can that be
> considered as if we're changing any language constructs at all in this RFC,
> then that might benefit too.  Note, I'm just saying "consider" on purpose,
> rather than suggesting any change to the RFC actually be made.
>
At a shot-from-the-hip guess, I'd assume that would introduce parser
ambiguity because of the lack of delimiting parenthesis.

-Sara