# Another attempt at passing arrays as varargs (with implementation)

**URL:** <https://forums.swift.org/t/another-attempt-at-passing-arrays-as-varargs-with-implementation/26718>\
**Category:** Pitches\
**Created:** [July 8, 2019, 2:54pm UTC](https://forums.swift.org/t/another-attempt-at-passing-arrays-as-varargs-with-implementation/26718 "2019-07-08T14:54:36Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 40

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![anandabits](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/swift/user_avatar/forums.swift.org/anandabits/32/355_2.png) [@anandabits](https://forums.swift.org/u/anandabits)\
**Post date:** [July 9, 2019, 3:07am UTC](https://forums.swift.org/t/another-attempt-at-passing-arrays-as-varargs-with-implementation/26718/40 "2019-07-09T03:07:55Z")

</div>

> [@jawbroken](#):
>
> Treating variadics solely as syntactic sugar for arrays and making this all work implicitly would be much nicer to use and save library authors from writing forwarding overloads. I'm not yet convinced that this is impossible due to source compatibility, ABI stability or type checking performance requirements. Is it?

The [enhanced variadics](https://forums.swift.org/t/enhanced-variadic-parameters/22944) I pitched sidestep source compatibility issues. I think that is the most viable path to avoiding forwarding overloads.

---

_[View the full topic](https://forums.swift.org/t/another-attempt-at-passing-arrays-as-varargs-with-implementation/26718)._