Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:88829
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.215.44 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAESVnVqSgpSO1pAWVgon6kcTSA_8vxB+P0f-TDwCGgN=E0xq9Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALYT1YpZVz-ixf-v9GdCM3EcYOdt9zAOH03_2rA3BK4FRDuD6w@mail.gmail.com>
	<561F4EEB.8070605@telia.com>
	<CAESVnVqSgpSO1pAWVgon6kcTSA_8vxB+P0f-TDwCGgN=E0xq9Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 13:16:59 -0600
Message-ID: <CAObuZdubug0ZOp1FS4ew31LM-prc6vEFwXkhoWc5O8RVjtfzyQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sara Golemon <pollita@php.net>
Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?Bj=C3=B6rn_Larsson?= <bjorn.x.larsson@telia.com>, 
	Sammy Kaye Powers <me@sammyk.me>, PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d04389335e97492052229854b
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][DISCUSSION] Revisit trailing commas in function arguments
From: derokorian@gmail.com (Ryan Pallas)

--f46d04389335e97492052229854b
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 11:14 AM, Sara Golemon <pollita@php.net> wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 11:59 PM, Bj=C3=B6rn 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.
>
> But its an entirely stylistic choice to use trailing commas for cleaner
diffs. You could also use leading  commas as well. If you made that a
coding standard for the organization, you would not have needed to
implement trailing am I right?

function foo(
   $bar
  ,$baz
  ,$boo
) { ... }

too_many_args(
   $this->id
  ,'some constant string'
  , 123
);

Wouldn't this give the same benefit as trailing commas when it comes to
adding removing arguments - a single line diff?

--f46d04389335e97492052229854b--