Hi,
Recall that it was superseded by this RFC, partly implemented in PHP 7.2:
- https://wiki.php.net/rfc/list-syntax-trailing-commas
In my eyes the voting result created a not quite consistent view on how
trailing commas are handled in PHP in general.
r//Björn Larsson
Den 2017-09-01 kl. 14:16,
On 1 September 2017 at 13:16, Albert Casademont
wrote:
> Revisiting this thread. AFAIK this RFC was never put to vote, right?
>
It was covered in https://wiki.php.net/rfc/list-syntax-trailing-commas
which was put to a vote.
Although I would like see just the trailing commas in function
arguments
Revisiting this thread. AFAIK this RFC was never put to vote, right?
On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 9:01 PM, Björn Larsson
wrote:
> Den 2015-10-16 kl. 15:09, skrev Sammy Kaye Powers:
>
>> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 8:28 PM, Marcio Almada
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>>
>>> 2015-10-14 16:25 GMT-03:00 Sammy Kaye P
Den 2015-10-16 kl. 15:09, skrev Sammy Kaye Powers:
On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 8:28 PM, Marcio Almada
wrote:
Hi,
2015-10-14 16:25 GMT-03:00 Sammy Kaye Powers :
Hello internals friends!
I'd like to open a discussion on the RFC to allow trailing commas in
function arguments.
https://wiki.php.net
On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 8:28 PM, Marcio Almada
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 2015-10-14 16:25 GMT-03:00 Sammy Kaye Powers :
> > Hello internals friends!
> >
> > I'd like to open a discussion on the RFC to allow trailing commas in
> > function arguments.
> >
> > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/revisit-trailing-comma-
Hi,
2015-10-14 16:25 GMT-03:00 Sammy Kaye Powers :
> Hello internals friends!
>
> I'd like to open a discussion on the RFC to allow trailing commas in
> function arguments.
>
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/revisit-trailing-comma-function-args
>
> Discuss! :)
>
> Thanks,
> Sammy Kaye Powers
> sammyk.me
On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 1:08 PM, Nikita Popov wrote:
>> 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 o
On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 10:04 PM, Sara Golemon wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 12:51 PM, Ryan Pallas
> 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 ma
On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 12:51 PM, Ryan Pallas 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.
On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 1:46 PM, Sara Golemon wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 12:16 PM, Ryan Pallas
> wrote:
> > 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 organi
On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 1:32 PM, Pedro Cordeiro
wrote:
> > Wouldn't this give the same benefit as trailing commas when it comes to
> > adding removing arguments - a single line diff?
>
> It would.
>
> However, I see some merit in someone wanting trailing commas for diffs.
> Leading commas would b
On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 12:16 PM, Ryan Pallas wrote:
> 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 righ
On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 12:32 PM, Pedro Cordeiro wrote:
> I see no reason to allocate resources to make this happen, but if someone
> does allocate their personal time into coding this, I wouldn't oppose a
> merge.
>
There's a diff attached to the RFC. The actual implementation is two
lines. The
> Wouldn't this give the same benefit as trailing commas when it comes to
> adding removing arguments - a single line diff?
It would.
However, I see some merit in someone wanting trailing commas for diffs.
Leading commas would break away from PSRs and one should not have to choose
between a stand
On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 11:14 AM, Sara Golemon wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 11:59 PM, Björn Larsson
> 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
Den 2015-10-15 kl. 19:14, skrev Sara Golemon:
On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 11:59 PM, Björn Larsson
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 c
On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 11:59 PM, Björn Larsson
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
Just my own opinion, but I support this idea. For most functions it may be
out of place, but when dealing with variadic functions it can add
consistency to code. In addition it can make for cleaner diffs when
overriding or switching back to default arguments. It is nice to not need
to adjust oth
Den 2015-10-14 kl. 21:25, skrev Sammy Kaye Powers:
Hello internals friends!
I'd like to open a discussion on the RFC to allow trailing commas in
function arguments.
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/revisit-trailing-comma-function-args
Discuss! :)
Thanks,
Sammy Kaye Powers
sammyk.me
Given the reason
19 matches
Mail list logo
