Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:74496
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.216.169 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <DUB406-EAS3560576E7F9AB9B54837717E23B0@phx.gbl>
References: <CA+9eiLuknJ7am5jU4WBN7fGXUcZtbb6axsji8ZnydCJ4P-O9hw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABBJUpcNL67-cXyBd=yuWdhZPmHM592Q4-g2PGcyOTS_KsBaqQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+9eiLvj5GVNQ=1D2=RbenfUCUAPaG3uP5H+yAW=TKd-jEVyjw@mail.gmail.com>
	<-6285448086228171932@unknownmsgid>
	<CA+9eiLvUeu0j+sPz-EWeq4VC=Spzc7tseAp4VHqpiFEaxHdLiQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<67d97efff27b61e45ef74d4f4339b4b3@mail.gmail.com>
	<962B3020-200F-45D2-8FEC-AD7A0BFDA50E@ajf.me>
	<CA+9eiLu7CZwEFS0bRHCdW2+ScnfuCbo+FCT-8HymLm=WZBhfhA@mail.gmail.com>
	<D1C446F2-C46C-49C1-B66E-702CA4901F1D@ajf.me>
	<DUB406-EAS3560576E7F9AB9B54837717E23B0@phx.gbl>
Date: Mon, 26 May 2014 12:11:48 +0200
Message-ID: <CAEZPtU4K-y8raOxzL_nkA0p-_3AXZERmcWRBDqnDM6ikNE8c+g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bob Weinand <bobwei9@hotmail.com>
Cc: Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me>, Dmitry Stogov <dmitry@zend.com>, Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com>, 
	Xinchen Hui <xinchen.h@zend.com>, PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>, 
	Stas Malyshev <smalyshev@sugarcrm.com>, Andi Gutmans <andi@zend.com>, 
	Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RE: [RFC] Fast Parameter Parsing API
From: pierre.php@gmail.com (Pierre Joye)

On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 11:39 AM, Bob Weinand <bobwei9@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Actually, that's exactly my the original API, just with ZP_OPTIONAL instead of numbers for counts:

Where was it proposed? I missed it.

> ZEND_PARSE_PARAMETERS(ZP_ARRAY(input) ZP_LONG(offset) ZP_OPTIONAL ZP_ZVAL(z_length) ZP_BOOL(preserve_keys), { return; })
> (The return at the end is the error branch)
>
> I still prefer it that way, but Dmitry doesn't...

Pretty much the same to me, with the same conclusion as well, sadly.

I do not find it more readable than the one in the RFC and it does not
solve the double or sometimes triple declarations of the arguments.
And I do not even want to think about how it will look if we implement
named arguments (let face it, we will have them).

> It's the most readable I still think.

zpp current usage is much more readable to me and less error prone
while writing (clang plugin helping to check the syntax, see Johannes
tools).

May I point you to my questions in this thread about extending the
reflection struct, add the necessary info (types) and maybe do the
naming args while being at it?

Cheers,
-- 
Pierre

@pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org