Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:109521 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 83082 invoked from network); 3 Apr 2020 18:01:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 3 Apr 2020 18:01:57 -0000 Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 353161804D0 for ; Fri, 3 Apr 2020 09:28:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on php-smtp4.php.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-ASN: AS11403 66.111.4.0/24 X-Spam-Virus: No X-Envelope-From: Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com (out4-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS for ; Fri, 3 Apr 2020 09:28:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BBC35C0355 for ; Fri, 3 Apr 2020 12:28:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imap2 ([10.202.2.52]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 03 Apr 2020 12:28:53 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= ryanmccullagh.com; h=mime-version:message-id:in-reply-to :references:date:from:to:subject:content-type; s=fm2; bh=GnCe50C WFC5/77s8WZsGZywQUQncYEHisrQGN5uVLg8=; b=MFL5GWq9PPdPmw4q5ztthP3 VFBszk24KNCyA7tZInApnJygxnbyxYdjfSUpUjv8d9vcgKwG6tTxzoXFm2zGDBwy jD557Bb+o+WV6g+QljrcTL2CHu/bCF8FGnYWXcfUJnOW787MLDqbPt8HJAAvjs1Y VDxbd64sLeBHZVfhR4wwR8chfvF8fJNFQ6TqMb1DJjt8dXWiCOUFEbvGLY7z1UWq 4wZiw48/ioNkieMHNcJdNNZcsKvLKKsB8TrDZnsb+FQyZAFJwgu4megxDrHbu52R pt1HjGvjddrHO9hfBfQCv/CECrsZceWy2zhpWxK+j13QlXfJV1u6RVcJWg33ahg= = DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=GnCe50 CWFC5/77s8WZsGZywQUQncYEHisrQGN5uVLg8=; b=bm+E7yueHw1ENQDeI+0kic oJDYFIIPjZMPZ66aM2ESuNCAgtXgBfFJEly36ODmpd7TLZ15X8YrvZxD1E8065Mn FXpIw6lK3p1iY+d1NJttzbWR9FDJANIBg+lNgBy4NgGdb8VWEHZ4xxeRUlImbJKm BnlIwtwbXc7LiCLA9Q1KfxldyrRKHNV8aJ1pV8jXp7CMEnJfmy40sgMLFICO6xp4 tnTz7TmXbJG49m6zFa22uAxW+6WSNaUu7muO1MLeAOQRqbASjSbIQ64UKdIvYUNO A5oWAZpCk+2Qk0p5ACvgoy+d/sJ/HPsiNveJwGiN31xLSACHiKW3Flq5YoSdGOEg == X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduhedrtdeigddutdduucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhepofgfggfkjghffffhvffutgesthdtredtreertdenucfhrhhomhepfdfthigr nhcuofgtvehulhhlrghghhdfuceomhgvsehrhigrnhhmtggtuhhllhgrghhhrdgtohhmqe enucffohhmrghinhepphhhphdrnhgvthenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgr rhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehmvgesrhihrghnmhgttghulhhlrghghhdrtghomh X-ME-Proxy: Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id 44FEBE00B8; Fri, 3 Apr 2020 12:28:53 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.1.7-1082-g13d7805-fmstable-20200403v1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <0c3c5e36-629c-4ce3-9d3b-e742cde438de@www.fastmail.com> In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2020 11:28:33 -0500 Reply-To: "Ryan McCullagh" To: "PHP internals" Content-Type: text/plain Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Allow trailing comma in parameter lists From: internals@lists.php.net ("Ryan McCullagh via internals") This would make PHP more consistent. Please add this! On Mon, Mar 30, 2020, at 12:32 PM, Guilliam Xavier wrote: > On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 11:31 PM Jakob Givoni wrote: > > > > Hi Rowan, > > > > On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 4:01 PM Rowan Tommins wrote: > > > > > > While I'd personally be fine with this change, I think we should > > > understand why the previous proposal failed rather than just hoping the > > > vote goes differently this time. > > > > I think you have a good point here. > > I've only been around for a short time so I can't comment on historical reasons. > > And though I agree the proposal is logical and consistent, I have this > > nagging feeling in the back of my brain: > > Are we encouraging functions with long lists of parameters so that > > they need to be on their own lines? > > Just to say, with descriptive names and type declarations (and now > union types), even a method with just two or three parameters can need > to be wrapped to keep lines below 120 characters ;) Maybe the RFC > could include an example? > > But I am curious too about why it failed last time. > > -- > Guilliam Xavier > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > >