Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:69155
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: softfail (pb1.pair.com: domain golemon.com does not designate 209.85.160.42 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: php@golemon.com
In-Reply-To: <CAF+90c8=EpaTr5JL8fq03EDMTL628W_uOGfps81_CE0CgUqU=Q@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>
	<CAF+90c8=EpaTr5JL8fq03EDMTL628W_uOGfps81_CE0CgUqU=Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 13:35:45 -0700
Message-ID: <CAESVnVoV5RVTAo6GngmGhO20gu8djwdkKJEu3sk6RxvZrOBhnw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com>
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b5d9fa911843604e68626a9
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] Syntax for variadic functions
From: pollita@php.net (Sara Golemon)

--047d7b5d9fa911843604e68626a9
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

> 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]).
>
> Right, that was exactly the ambiguity I was unfond of.  Glad that was as I
hoped. Voted +1.

--047d7b5d9fa911843604e68626a9--