# Lifting the 1 variadic param per function restriction

**URL:** <https://forums.swift.org/t/lifting-the-1-variadic-param-per-function-restriction/33787>\
**Category:** Pitches\
**Created:** [February 13, 2020, 4:55pm UTC](https://forums.swift.org/t/lifting-the-1-variadic-param-per-function-restriction/33787 "2020-02-13T16:55:03Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 17

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![owenv](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/swift/user_avatar/forums.swift.org/owenv/32/6137_2.png) [@owenv](https://forums.swift.org/u/owenv)\
**Post date:** [June 28, 2020, 4:39pm UTC](https://forums.swift.org/t/lifting-the-1-variadic-param-per-function-restriction/33787/17 "2020-06-28T16:39:29Z")

</div>

> [@prathameshk](#):
>
> I have one doubt though, how would this work if the last variadic parameter type is a closure?

This proposal doesn't change the existing, post SE-0279 behavior of how multiple trailing closures interact with variadic closure parameters. There's some additional discussion of this and examples in [SE-0279 and variadic parameters](https://forums.swift.org/t/se-0279-and-variadic-parameters/36410), but basically, trailing closures and variadic parameters don't work very well together due to the trailing closure argument matching rules requiring a backwards scan, and this proposal neither improves nor worsens the situation.

---

_[View the full topic](https://forums.swift.org/t/lifting-the-1-variadic-param-per-function-restriction/33787)._