Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:114511
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <f3d20496-c560-42b7-9a0d-8672b3cafa7d@www.fastmail.com>
 <1565EB81-57B7-49B0-A47C-342E0088A432@trowski.com> <CAN2symhHys1uADWnOfraEA3SiM8_57=JttWhgOJ0Kh7nwt4R+g@mail.gmail.com>
 <532D1413-52FF-4403-A20B-BBDB51163C85@trowski.com>
In-Reply-To: <532D1413-52FF-4403-A20B-BBDB51163C85@trowski.com>
Date: Mon, 17 May 2021 21:14:08 -0700
Message-ID: <CAN2symjMOtBaJ+9haKOyh3RchBo8Bp34AaE5YJ=Gm0rfGhjNXw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Aaron Piotrowski <aaron@trowski.com>
Cc: Mark Randall <marandall@php.net>, internals@lists.php.net
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Partial function application
From: paul.crovella@gmail.com (Paul Crovella)

On Fri, May 14, 2021 at 4:44 PM Aaron Piotrowski <aaron@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(?) =3D=3D foo(?, ?) =3D=3D 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.