Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:68740
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.128.173 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <5220CEDE.8080600@sugarcrm.com>
References: <CAF+90c_Ld1BAaj2kd+hhdNkcbj6Mar2EZSYPJaSFWqmV_tb=Xw@mail.gmail.com>
	<5220CEDE.8080600@sugarcrm.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 19:06:40 +0200
Message-ID: <CAF+90c_d4i0XC7d76_zfE6YLgEi_J2wv-F+kdtSCySsOSSw=9g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Stas Malyshev <smalyshev@sugarcrm.com>
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0122ad06ff9cb704e52d3e2e
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Argument unpacking
From: nikita.ppv@gmail.com (Nikita Popov)

--089e0122ad06ff9cb704e52d3e2e
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 6:57 PM, Stas Malyshev <smalyshev@sugarcrm.com>wrote:

> 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?


No use case at all. This is a technical specification, so I write down what
is possible, not necessarily what you'd write in your code. Of course it
makes no sense to write something like ...[1, 2, 3], because you could just
as well write 1, 2, 3 directly. The point of that example is that it's
possible to mix it with normal arguments. The "practical" example for that
is the example in the introduction: $db->query($query, ...$params). Here a
"normal" argument is followed by an unpacked argument.

> This is just another way of doing call_user_func, I'm not sure we really
need it.

Assuming you mean call_user_func_array, yes. This is just syntax sugar for
call_user_func_array. Advantages of this syntax over cufa are outlined
here:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/argument_unpacking#advantages_over_call_user_func_array

Thanks,
Nikita

--089e0122ad06ff9cb704e52d3e2e--