> Assuming the RFC as-is represents the current state, I'm +1 on all of it.
>>
>> I'm not a fan of some of the proposed alterations which would translate
>> arrays (a la call_user_func_array()). To clarify, the following output is
>> what I'd expect:
>> function f(...$args) {
>> echo count($args
>
>
> I'd like to go forward with voting on this. Are there any issues that still
> need to be resolved?
>
> Assuming the RFC as-is represents the current state, I'm +1 on all of it.
I'm not a fan of some of the proposed alterations which would translate
arrays (a la call_user_func_array()). To c
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 9:02 PM, Sara Golemon wrote:
>
>> I'd like to go forward with voting on this. Are there any issues that
>> still
>> need to be resolved?
>>
>> Assuming the RFC as-is represents the current state, I'm +1 on all of it.
>
> I'm not a fan of some of the proposed alterations wh
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 5:47 PM, Nikita Popov wrote:
> Hi internals!
>
> I'd like to propose an RFC, which adds dedicated syntax for variadic
> functions:
>
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/variadics
>
> Basically this allows declaring variadics directly in the function
> signature, rather than fet
