Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:86974 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 51319 invoked from network); 30 Jun 2015 17:09:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 30 Jun 2015 17:09:56 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=fred@fredemmott.co.uk; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=fred@fredemmott.co.uk; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain fredemmott.co.uk from 209.85.220.54 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: fred@fredemmott.co.uk X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.220.54 mail-pa0-f54.google.com Received: from [209.85.220.54] ([209.85.220.54:35505] helo=mail-pa0-f54.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id FE/20-46577-06DC2955 for ; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 13:09:53 -0400 Received: by pactm7 with SMTP id tm7so8348878pac.2 for ; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 10:09:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:content-type:mime-version:subject:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id:references:to; bh=Op9yYL4/rsxuykyQTdT7rqqVM1rURi88RH3OgAzwq5w=; b=GoKOKO0LjOtfbPHy2fZgWRf5YyYS3opW8Fl5zbXsGPrFHSa4EgaLrsPxEWupDjSbGM uB6kFr9W2BWpr0qTIVaTATMUFLanmJ8I/pQ8EhoZMQQHHmj/eI46EkBQi2hqF0DeWJ5l ZChgZrgof8mdyM3J7X4xTvXv4+w9aHVwMhniMd/E90V74pJw56F+/Mc8cyn09VauvEO2 zPGvRMeXFp9v+iqExjCXZZO3/PR5ciwpUypUEqBgFzr/SKbvzfOWMB6xqlY1BxyLkN5x S5RA13LNdm2CrYHsJAZcwcqznHDFd5lXdDRNY/hl2bBJreqsWy83Wg6L+d0+E0NEUA4m a/Vg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQn3onir1XIRH2TsNBXu6jrGnScfHoyJlQQ7JlTfcG/HEDVxAWQ+8/YHkMlUx/NLDcj2jk64 X-Received: by 10.70.102.164 with SMTP id fp4mr2907166pdb.48.1435684189306; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 10:09:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2620:10d:c082:1011:aa20:66ff:fe45:115c? ([2620:10d:c082:1011:aa20:66ff:fe45:115c]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id om10sm46150106pbb.58.2015.06.30.10.09.47 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 30 Jun 2015 10:09:48 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_5CA35980-C30A-4F7C-9848-9B478EB58FE2" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2098\)) In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 10:10:03 -0700 Cc: Florian Anderiasch , Yasuo Ohgaki , Christian Schneider , PHP Development Message-ID: <3EC41B94-9B8E-4894-86C3-1D922D8E0A20@fredemmott.co.uk> References: <68262FAD-587B-47FF-B388-3B8551FDCA22@cschneid.com> <5582FCE8.9070108@anderiasch.de> To: =?utf-8?Q?Jakub_Kub=C3=AD=C4=8Dek?= X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2098) Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Revisit trailing commas in function call parameters? From: fred@fredemmott.co.uk (Fred Emmott) --Apple-Mail=_5CA35980-C30A-4F7C-9848-9B478EB58FE2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Some more context: https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=3D64176 = https://wiki.php.net/rfc/trailing-comma-function-args = (failed 15-20) On a more positive side, this change was very well received within = Facebook when implemented within HHVM; this was a mix of: - the =E2=80=98git blame=E2=80=99 advantage is much bigger than we = expected; this is probably true for any large project that has many = contributors to the same file. It doesn=E2=80=99t help much if each file = basically has an =E2=80=98owner=E2=80=99. - people new to PHP liked not having to remember where they are allowed = and when they=E2=80=99re not. This felt like removing one small = inconsistency without much of a downside > On Jun 28, 2015, at 7:19 AM, Jakub Kub=C3=AD=C4=8Dek = wrote: >=20 > +1 for allowing trailing comma in every function call. >=20 >=20 > Regards, > Kubo2 >=20 >=20 > 2015-06-18 19:16 GMT+02:00 Florian Anderiasch : >> On 18.06.2015 08:25, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote: >>>> If people still consider it more harm- than useful then please = don't flame >>>> me and I'll shut up again :-) >>>>=20 >>>=20 >>> PHP allows >>>=20 >>> array( >>> 1, >>> 2, >>> 3, >>> ); >>>=20 >>> therefore >>>=20 >>> my_variadic_function( >>> "foo", >>> "bar", >>> "qux", >>> ); >>>=20 >>> is consistent behavior to me. >>=20 >> If variadic functions allow this and normal functions don't (and by = most >> PHP coding standards you'll format like this all the time because of = 80 >> chars limit I don't see how this is in any way consistent. It's still = a >> function call after all and not an array. >>=20 >> ~Florian >>=20 >> -- >> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List >> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php >>=20 >=20 > --=20 > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php >=20 --Apple-Mail=_5CA35980-C30A-4F7C-9848-9B478EB58FE2--