Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:88828
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain telia.com from 81.236.60.155 cause and error)
To: Sara Golemon <pollita@php.net>, Sammy Kaye Powers <me@sammyk.me>
References: <CALYT1YpZVz-ixf-v9GdCM3EcYOdt9zAOH03_2rA3BK4FRDuD6w@mail.gmail.com>
 <561F4EEB.8070605@telia.com>
 <CAESVnVqSgpSO1pAWVgon6kcTSA_8vxB+P0f-TDwCGgN=E0xq9Q@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Message-ID: <561FFA14.7040904@telia.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 21:10:12 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAESVnVqSgpSO1pAWVgon6kcTSA_8vxB+P0f-TDwCGgN=E0xq9Q@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][DISCUSSION] Revisit trailing commas in function
 arguments
From: bjorn.x.larsson@telia.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Bj=c3=b6rn_Larsson?=)

Den 2015-10-15 kl. 19:14, skrev Sara Golemon:
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 11:59 PM, Björn Larsson
> <bjorn.x.larsson@telia.com> wrote:
>> Given the reason against this RFC in the thread it would be interesting
>> to know why HHVM decided to implement it?
>>
> Happy to answer, but I need to state a couple things first:
> * I don't really care if this change lands.  I'd kinda like it, but
> it's not solving a massive problem for me.
> * There aren't any compelling reasons against this.  The only reason
> given of any note that I've seen is: "There are no compelling reasons
> in favor of it."  And I'll agree with that.  Like I just said, it's
> not solving any major problems, and it's not going to cause any major
> problems.  It's just a tiny, vanishingly insignificant piece of
> syntactic sugar which disappears before we even get to the AST.
>
> So again, could scarcely care less, so don't expect me to champion
> either side, but you asked "why", so here it is: It makes code reviews
> marginally less ugly.
>
> That's it.  It's a tiny problem to solve, and likely saves less than
> 100ms during diff reviews, but it's a solution to a problem.
>
> Yes, it's a problem which countless developers live with to no
> significant negative consequence.  Solo developers and small shops
> won't care about this since they tend to not bother with code reviews.
> FB has enough engineers working on its very large codebase though,
> that nobody has it all paged in, so code reviews are mandatory, and if
> we can spend five minutes of effort to loosen the parser rules in
> exchange for saving 1/10th of a second on every diff review that
> extends/shrinks a function call/signature with no overhead, then of
> course we would.  That's a fair exchange.
>
> Apologies if you were hoping for a compelling reason.
>
> -Sara
>
No, I think this is a good answer and part of the motivation you state
could in my eyes land in the RFC. I mean there are big organizations
using PHP ;-)

The feature itself is free to use and misusing it shouldn't be a reason
against it.

//Björn