> -----Original Message----- > From: Nikita Popov [mailto:nikita....@gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 3:03 PM > To: Stas Malyshev > Cc: PHP internals > Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Syntax for variadic functions > > On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 12:09 AM, Stas Malyshev > <smalys...@sugarcrm.com>wrote: > > > Hi! > > > > I like the idea, the concept of capturing "rest of args" is pretty > > common. But couldn't we in addition have func_get_args() be able to > > receive an int argument that would produce "the rest" in an easier way > > for those that prefer func_ger_args()? > > > > I would do that if this RFC doesn't pass, but I don't see much point doing > both things (syntax + extra arg). Are there any particular scenarios where > using func_get_args() would be preferable?
Admittedly I'm (very) late to the game, but admittedly #2 - I actually just noticed this thread as it went up for a vote. Personally I find Stas's direction preferable to introducing new semantics - mainly because I think that with every new piece of syntax we make the language a tad bit more complex no matter what. Conversely, adding an optional argument to func_get_args() sticks with the same spirit we've had for years regarding variadic functions, and arguably is more versatile. Assuming we implement a [, start[, end]] syntax support, then you can more granularly split exactly the offsets you want - in case you don't want all of them in one array (which would require a call to array_slice() using the new syntax). Before you jump and say it's not such a common case - I agree - I said arguably :) Zeev -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
