> On May 14, 2021, at 7:00 PM, Larry Garfield <la...@garfieldtech.com> wrote: > > Is that actually going to come up? Given that PHP functions (at least > user-space ones) accept extra trailing arguments and just let them fall off, > I would *expect* a closure that way to do the same. Named arguments continue > that, I believe, by just ignoring any variadic arguments that do not match a > parameter in the function. It seems odd to go back on that behavior now.
I don't consider forwarding extra arguments an issue. I briefly was thinking it might be nice to be explicit about the number of arguments a partial would accept, but you convinced me otherwise in R11, so I think we're on the same page here. > > I can't speak for the others, but I could tolerate making "more than one > extra ? beyond the end of the parameter list is an error", potentially, as at > that point they're redundant. But if a function has, say, 4 params, then > fourParams(1, 3, ?) is a convenient way to say "and placeholder everything > else". Especially in dynamic cases like Nicolas pointed out, you may not > necessarily know how many arguments there are. With what I proposed in my last email, `fourParams(1, 3, ?)` is acceptable, there's nothing superfluous there. At least one ? is needed to declare a partial. Similarly, a partial for a no parameter function: `$partial = functionTakingNoParams(?)`. Or even a partial with args bound to all four params: `fourParams(1, 2, 3, 4, ?)`. What would error is `fourParams(1, 3, ?, ?)`, as the second ? is meaningless. I think you've convinced me that one-for-one matching on ? is burdensome, but the above is a happy medium perhaps? Cheers, Aaron Piotrowski -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: https://www.php.net/unsub.php
