Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:68734 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 54633 invoked from network); 30 Aug 2013 16:57:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 30 Aug 2013 16:57:07 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain sugarcrm.com designates 108.166.43.99 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 108.166.43.99 smtp99.ord1c.emailsrvr.com Linux 2.6 Received: from [108.166.43.99] ([108.166.43.99:46100] helo=smtp99.ord1c.emailsrvr.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id A7/74-32511-FDEC0225 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 12:57:06 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp5.relay.ord1c.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 7035E1B008F; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 12:57:01 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: OK Received: by smtp5.relay.ord1c.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: smalyshev-AT-sugarcrm.com) with ESMTPSA id 1FD3B1B01B6; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 12:57:01 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <5220CEDE.8080600@sugarcrm.com> Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 09:57:02 -0700 Organization: SugarCRM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Nikita Popov CC: PHP internals References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Argument unpacking From: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com (Stas Malyshev) Hi! > This RFC proposes to add a syntax for argument unpacking: > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/argument_unpacking > > Basically, this is the "complement" of the variadics RFC: It is not about > declaring variadic functions, but about calling them. This is just another way of doing call_user_func, I'm not sure we really need it. And something like: test(1, 2, ...[3, 4], 5, 6, ...[7, 8]) looks plain weird. What would be the use case for doing something like that? I don't think we should add this. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227