在zend框架2中获取我的一些控制器(get some of my controllers in zend framework 2)

 没有理由不能 。 
 
 Haskell没有方法参数的逗号，尽管它用于数组元素分隔。 
 
 从那以后，Smalltalk就没有逗号，因为它们存在于Ruby中。 鉴于Ruby受Smalltalk的影响，似乎添加逗号是一种刻意的语言选择。 （然后，Smalltalk的参数列表样式更像是使用参数传递哈希，但仍然是逗号。） 
 
 但是，Ruby确实使用了文字的无逗号数组： 
 
%w[I don't have any commas!]  #=> ["I", "don't", "have", "any", "commas!"]
 
 最后，我认为要问的问题是，使用逗号是否能让事情变得更清晰，更容易解析。 例如，这有多清楚： 
 
foo bar baz
 
 那是foo (bar baz) ，还是foo (bar (baz)) ？ 或者甚至((foo) bar) baz) （尽管在非功能性语言中这可能没有多大意义）？ 虽然显然知道无论优先级是什么允许你弄清楚这一点，但它也意味着你可能需要更频繁地包括括号，而使用逗号时差异很明显： 
 
foo bar baz   # foo(bar(baz))
foo bar, baz  # foo(bar, baz)
 
 显然，在Ruby中省略括号有时也会导致歧义，但通常会导致语法错误，而不是依赖于事物的优先级。 
 
 最终，它是Matz等人的语言选择。 没有理由不这样做，这正是他们认为最有意义的。 

There's no reason it couldn't.
 
Haskell doesn't have commas for method arguments, though it does for array element delimitation.
 
Smalltalk doesn't have commas at all in the sense of how they exist in Ruby—since. Given that Ruby is influenced by Smalltalk, it seems adding commas was a deliberate language choice. (Then again, Smalltalk's parameter list style is more like passing a hash with arguments, but nevertheless is comma-less.)
 
Ruby, though, does have comma-less arrays using literals:
 
%w[I don't have any commas!]  #=> ["I", "don't", "have", "any", "commas!"]
 
Ultimately I think the question to ask is whether having commas makes things clearer and easier to parse mentally. For example, how clear is this:
 
foo bar baz
 
Is that foo (bar baz), or foo (bar (baz))? Or perhaps even ((foo) bar) baz) (though that probably doesn't make much sense in a non-functional language anyway)? While obviously knowing whatever the precedence would be allows you to figure this out, it also means that you may have to include parenthesis more often, while with commas the difference is clear:
 
foo bar baz   # foo(bar(baz))
foo bar, baz  # foo(bar, baz)
 
Obviously leaving out parenthesis in Ruby can sometimes cause ambiguity as well, but often it results in a syntax error rather than relying on the precedence of things.
 
Ultimately, it's a language choice Matz, et al., made. There's no reason it couldn't have been otherwise, it's just what they thought made the most sense.