On Fri, May 14, 2021 at 4:44 PM Aaron Piotrowski <aa...@trowski.com> wrote: > > My issue is the dual-meaning of ? in the current proposal. In `foo(?, 42)`, > the ? represents a single argument, but adding a trailing ? (such as in > `foo(?, 42, ?)`) represents any number of arguments. Would it perhaps make > sense to make superfluous ? markers an error? > > foo(?); // Fine, needed to define a partial with no bound args. > foo(?, 42); // Ok, binds second arg. > foo(?, ?, 42); // Ok, binds third arg. > foo(?, 42, ?); // Error, unnecessary placeholder. > foo(?, ?); // Error, unnecessary placeholder. > > The intention here is to keep the syntax unambiguous. > > foo(?) == foo(?, ?) == foo(?, ?, ?) and so forth is not going to be obvious > to everyone, so why allow meaningless and misleading syntax. > > Cheers, > Aaron Piotrowski >
While it's my preference not to use superfluous placeholders they do no real harm and I do not feel comfortable imposing this preference on others. -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: https://www.php.net/unsub.php
