Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:114475
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\))
In-Reply-To: <f3d20496-c560-42b7-9a0d-8672b3cafa7d@www.fastmail.com>
Date: Fri, 14 May 2021 16:48:53 -0500
Cc: internals@lists.php.net
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <1565EB81-57B7-49B0-A47C-342E0088A432@trowski.com>
References: <f3d20496-c560-42b7-9a0d-8672b3cafa7d@www.fastmail.com>
To: Mark Randall <marandall@php.net>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Partial function application
From: aaron@trowski.com (Aaron Piotrowski)


> On May 14, 2021, at 4:18 PM, Mark Randall <marandall@php.net> wrote:
>=20
>=20
> Passing more arguments than the partial defines would result in an =
argument count error.
>=20

I think it=E2=80=99s reasonable to allow passing more arguments to a =
partial since user-defined functions and closures allow this without =
error.

Whether or not the extra arguments are automatically forwarded to the =
function wrapped by the partial is debatable.

Consider `function foo(int $x, int $y, int $z) {}` with a partial =
defined as `$partial =3D foo(?, 42)`.

If the partial is called as `$partial(73, 8)`, should 8 be forwarded to =
`$z` or should the call error as providing too few arguments? Or perhaps =
should the partial declaration should error, as it should have been =
`foo(?, 42, ?)` or `foo(?, 42, ...?) so the partial provided all =
required arguments to foo.

Cheers,
Aaron Piotrowski