Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:80721
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain ajf.me designates 192.64.116.207 as permitted sender)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.1 \(1993\))
In-Reply-To: <CAOsHV+upAM41S8CjG8+nF58=Qey7PfK22aJJX5QfA4dhmmGrYQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2015 03:00:53 +0000
Cc: Yasuo Ohgaki <yohgaki@ohgaki.net>,
 Patrick Schaaf <php@bof.de>,
 Simon J Welsh <simon@welsh.co.nz>,
 internals <internals@lists.php.net>,
 Marc Bennewitz <dev@mabe.berlin>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <C4D39A83-1A56-4F68-ABEE-642F05AD5620@ajf.me>
References: <52243BA6.5040905@sugarcrm.com> <54B6C047.3070301@mabe.berlin> <CAOsHV+ua87pdP+bmy18+ds6roBaiGnoRD7iid=q7ZXPhQzWYHQ@mail.gmail.com> <48223964-2F90-4386-BD8F-934791E45EB4@welsh.co.nz> <CAJ26g5R6-O5hLh1HrP4uWnhFn6XaH=Xim1aZPckCqxMKEUzQCQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAGa2bXZqPQuVWff+BrQV0MW1sKh7mnSy7oUUXfUbwzJFJaeHeg@mail.gmail.com> <CAOsHV+sknmhEvxxLSTjgiAK=Wc2m+kwP=SvXwWm9ULXrLwxbdA@mail.gmail.com> <CAOsHV+saj33qpfN8kbH07jYabA5N1o0R9y2-q+etZjU3S3AHmA@mail.gmail.com> <9F083B4E-B603-4A1D-9F1D-C758D835B450@ajf.me> <CAOsHV+upAM41S8CjG8+nF58=Qey7PfK22aJJX5QfA4dhmmGrYQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: marcio3w@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Skipping parameters take 2
From: ajf@ajf.me (Andrea Faulds)

Hey Marcio,

> On 18 Jan 2015, at 02:22, Marcio Almada <marcio.web2@gmail.com> wrote:
>=20
> Andrea,
>=20
>> For consistency with list(), we could also just put nothing:
>>=20
>>   foo($bar, , $baz);
>>=20
>> Which is like:
>>=20
>>  list($bar, , $baz) =3D $arr;
>>=20
>> Thoughts?
>=20
> Not sure. Do we consider both contexts (list assignment skipping and
> parameter skipping) as assignments? If so, then the consistency
> arguments seems very strong to me.

Not really. But, list() is very function-like in syntax, so it=E2=80=99d =
make sense to follow its lead for actual functions.

> Only point against the consistency path is that in the context of
> list() the blank identifier is used to discard a value, while on
> parameter skipping the blank identifier inherits a previously declared
> value.

Yes, I suppose that=E2=80=99s a fair point.

Though if you were to implement a list() clone as a function (purely for =
the sake of example, you wouldn=E2=80=99t *actually* want to do this), =
you might actually do something similar:

    function listLike(&$a =3D 0, &$b =3D 0, &$c =3D 0, array $arr) {
        if ($a !=3D=3D 0) {
            $a =3D $arr[0];
        }
        if ($b !=3D=3D 0) {
            $b =3D $arr[1];
        }
        if ($c !=3D=3D 0) {
            $c =3D $arr[2];
        }
    }

    listLike($bar, 0, $baz, $arr);

list()=E2=80=99s value skipping is a little bit like function argument =
skipping, in that way, right?

With this list()-like default value syntax, it=E2=80=99d even work the =
same:

    listLike($bar, , $baz, $arr);

=E2=80=A6that probably made no sense. But I think there=E2=80=99s a case =
to be made that since list() follows this syntax, we should for function =
calls to.

By the way, while I was opposed to this RFC before, I am seeing its =
value somewhat when using badly-designed APIs like json_decode. That =
said, I=E2=80=99m still not sure I like the RFC concept=E2=80=A6 better =
to make new, improved APIs than add kludges to make bad APIs more =
usable.

--
Andrea Faulds
http://ajf.me/