Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:69157
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain zend.com from 209.85.128.169 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>
 c165f6118d8f51141f24f2766c3bd59f@mail.gmail.com
In-Reply-To: c165f6118d8f51141f24f2766c3bd59f@mail.gmail.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Thread-Index: AQJbKA7IjQdeWQEHqGjD2+5ypdPJsgLB/Q9IAqjWn7EB55RK2ph1V2XwgAAO+iA=
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 00:41:10 +0300
Message-ID: <513f5c8e856cec5f71d8828d02f19e3a@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: Zeev Suraski [mailto:zeev@zend.com]
> Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 11:52 PM
> To: 'Nikita Popov'; 'Stas Malyshev'
> Cc: 'PHP internals'
> Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Syntax for variadic functions
>
> > -----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 :)

After thinking about it some more I see more value in the 2nd feature of
this RFC - the ability to do pass by reference on variable argument lists
- than I initially realized, so I'm actually in favor of the RFC.

I'm still in favor of func_get_args() being updated with start/end
optional parameters though.

Zeev