Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:69156
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain zend.com from 209.85.128.175 cause and error)
References: <CAF+90c8oxd4j4sj6AL+TdYu6_AoroWk1=RPdKrE7PNBs2XZg=A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAN=kQJcq9U6AtU1xSao7U4KRwGWaXQ7WCRWju9P6=r3PPjppPA@mail.gmail.com>
	<521E750F.6070800@sugarcrm.com> <CAF+90c8n411QjXmEX3SMRHu20cG3vxGkNi0KWQubCNAM9Qu_mg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAF+90c8n411QjXmEX3SMRHu20cG3vxGkNi0KWQubCNAM9Qu_mg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Thread-Index: AQJbKA7IjQdeWQEHqGjD2+5ypdPJsgLB/Q9IAqjWn7EB55RK2ph1V2Xw
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 23:51:40 +0300
Message-ID: <c165f6118d8f51141f24f2766c3bd59f@mail.gmail.com>
To: Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com>, Stas Malyshev <smalyshev@sugarcrm.com>
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Syntax for variadic functions
From: zeev@zend.com (Zeev Suraski)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nikita Popov [mailto:nikita.ppv@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 3:03 PM
> To: Stas Malyshev
> Cc: PHP internals
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Syntax for variadic functions
>
> On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 12:09 AM, Stas Malyshev
> <smalyshev@sugarcrm.com>wrote:
>
> > Hi!
> >
> > I like the idea, the concept of capturing "rest of args" is pretty
> > common. But couldn't we in addition have func_get_args() be able to
> > receive an int argument that would produce "the rest" in an easier way
> > for those that prefer func_ger_args()?
> >
>
> I would do that if this RFC doesn't pass, but I don't see much point
doing
> both things (syntax + extra arg). Are there any particular scenarios
where
> using func_get_args() would be preferable?

Admittedly I'm (very) late to the game, but admittedly #2 - I actually
just noticed this thread as it went up for a vote.
Personally I find Stas's direction preferable to introducing new semantics
- mainly because I think that with every new piece of syntax we make the
language a tad bit more complex no matter what.
Conversely, adding an optional argument to func_get_args() sticks with the
same spirit we've had for years regarding variadic functions, and arguably
is more versatile.  Assuming we implement a [, start[, end]] syntax
support, then you can more granularly split exactly the offsets you want -
in case you don't want all of them in one array (which would require a
call to array_slice() using the new syntax).  Before you jump and say it's
not such a common case - I agree - I said arguably :)

Zeev