Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:69151
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.219.47 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAESVnVp3MkaQbQLi2+0YPeguuF_BiMOtnYacfc5Pn+rYEUquYg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAF+90c8oxd4j4sj6AL+TdYu6_AoroWk1=RPdKrE7PNBs2XZg=A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAF+90c-8fMSnTCs_s06zmRAFirRe9OLHTmGF8f0Xq2t6u_dWfg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAESVnVp3MkaQbQLi2+0YPeguuF_BiMOtnYacfc5Pn+rYEUquYg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 21:14:51 +0200
Message-ID: <CAF+90c8=EpaTr5JL8fq03EDMTL628W_uOGfps81_CE0CgUqU=Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sara Golemon <pollita@php.net>
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e011614debf13c204e6850449
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] Syntax for variadic functions
From: nikita.ppv@gmail.com (Nikita Popov)

--089e011614debf13c204e6850449
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 9:02 PM, Sara Golemon <pollita@php.net> wrote:

>
>> I'd like to go forward with voting on this. Are there any issues that
>> still
>> need to be resolved?
>>
>> Assuming the RFC as-is represents the current state, I'm +1 on all of it.
>
> I'm not a fan of some of the proposed alterations which would translate
> arrays (a la call_user_func_array()).  To clarify, the following output is
> what I'd expect:
> function f(...$args) {
>   echo count($args);
> }
> f(1,2,3); // 3
> f([1,2,3]); // 1
>
> Not "3" in both cases.
>

Yes, that's the output you'll get. If it weren't the case it would be
impossible to define a function accepting multiple array arguments like
f([1, 2, 3], [4, 5, 6], [7, 8, 9]).

Nikita

--089e011614debf13c204e6850449--