Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:88804
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.217.176 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CALYT1YpZVz-ixf-v9GdCM3EcYOdt9zAOH03_2rA3BK4FRDuD6w@mail.gmail.com>
 <3D.A7.33697.434EE165@pb1.pair.com>
In-Reply-To: <3D.A7.33697.434EE165@pb1.pair.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 03:24:01 +0000
Message-ID: <CALLYd6RD_Q-A22QB6Qr1jdfCFmPo3ofb9aGjQ5Oj2MpStMsf+A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me>, internals@lists.php.net
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c3be586de4e805221c36e6
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC][DISCUSSION] Revisit trailing commas in
 function arguments
From: mailto.woden@gmail.com (Daniel Persson)

--001a11c3be586de4e805221c36e6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

I'll echo Andrea remarks,
-1, sorry.

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015, 01:25 Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me> wrote:

> Hey Sammy,
>
> Sammy Kaye Powers wrote:
> > I'd like to open a discussion on the RFC to allow trailing commas in
> > function arguments.
> >
> > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/revisit-trailing-comma-function-args
> >
> > Discuss! :)
>
> Hmm. I'm not sure if this is a good idea. For arrays, trailing commas
> make perfect sense: arrays are very often written over multiple lines,
> where trailing commas look pretty, and it's likely new elements will be
> added or old elements removed, justifying the trailing comma for cleaner
> diffs and less pain when editing the source.
>
> But for functions? Most function calls are just a single line. Most
> function declarations, too. And even when they are multi-line, you're
> not going to be adding a new argument or parameter, respectively, very
> often. Since these additions aren't very common, you'd need to use
> trailing commas everywhere (yuck) to get any benefit, because you
> probably can't predict which instances you're going to change soon.
>
> To me this looks like something that adds another big stylistic
> difference to disagree on, and adds potential ugliness (`foo($bar,);`)
> for very limited gain.
>
> So, my intial reaction would be a -1, sorry.
>
> Thanks.
> --
> Andrea Faulds
> http://ajf.me/
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>

--001a11c3be586de4e805221c36e6--