Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:88839
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.215.54 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAESVnVqzJBhHNVTEgV0LE4f98oRPyLNko+m7rS-M-V8qDTMrjw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALYT1YpZVz-ixf-v9GdCM3EcYOdt9zAOH03_2rA3BK4FRDuD6w@mail.gmail.com>
	<561F4EEB.8070605@telia.com>
	<CAESVnVqSgpSO1pAWVgon6kcTSA_8vxB+P0f-TDwCGgN=E0xq9Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAObuZdubug0ZOp1FS4ew31LM-prc6vEFwXkhoWc5O8RVjtfzyQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAESVnVrTL2xMq43DVEF0ZqayfwsPyZRbE=THTCgjOeRZgt8xNg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAObuZdtDoiJAXLr3qdL7SknDPtYqtK3hx8S8qp18o7b26GEncA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAESVnVqzJBhHNVTEgV0LE4f98oRPyLNko+m7rS-M-V8qDTMrjw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 22:08:35 +0200
Message-ID: <CAF+90c9DEo_YNXKZWrepGrOqr7MdB1Ddrx8uDOKCsURcB2WSxg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sara Golemon <pollita@php.net>
Cc: Ryan Pallas <derokorian@gmail.com>, =?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=001a11c3811a79069e05222a3ede
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][DISCUSSION] Revisit trailing commas in function arguments
From: nikita.ppv@gmail.com (Nikita Popov)

--001a11c3811a79069e05222a3ede
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 10:04 PM, Sara Golemon <pollita@php.net> wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 12:51 PM, Ryan Pallas <derokorian@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > I do h ave one question I just thought of though... how does the
> allowance
> > of trailing comma work with the splat operator (...)? I'm assuming a
> > function call/definition may only have one or the other, is that correct?
> >
> Excellent question.  The patch on Sammy's RFC was written in Feb 2013,
> before variadics, so it doesn't take them into account.
>
> I would say that it should be modified to disallow a trailing comma
> following either a variadic declaration or a splat invocation, since
> the grammar around these two things prohibits followups anyway.
>

We allow multiple splats in one call. Something like this (after trailing
comma patch) should be just fine:

    foo(
        ...$args,
        ...$moreArgs,
        ...$evenMoreArgs,
    );

We don't allow multiple variadic parameters. However I also see little
point in explicitly forbidding this one case. You'd be able to use the
trailing comma in all cases ... apart from that one single instance.

Nikita

--001a11c3811a79069e05222a3ede--