Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:127782
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Partial Function Application v2
Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2025 16:46:46 +0700
Message-ID: <3778576D-5F1F-46C1-AE19-F8FABDCA3968@koalephant.com>
References: <b2f466e6-b9d8-4aec-a275-e7ae7c4b67ff@app.fastmail.com>
Cc: php internals <internals@lists.php.net>
In-Reply-To: <b2f466e6-b9d8-4aec-a275-e7ae7c4b67ff@app.fastmail.com>
To: Larry Garfield <larry@garfieldtech.com>
From: php-lists@koalephant.com (Stephen Reay)



> On 28 Jun 2025, at 12:15, Larry Garfield <larry@garfieldtech.com> wrote:
>=20
> =EF=BB=BFHi folks.  Arnaud and I would like to present take-2 at Partial Fu=
nction Application.
>=20
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/partial_function_application_v2
>=20
> It is largely similar to the previous PFA proposal from 2021, though there=
 are a number of changes.  Most notably:
>=20
> * The implementation is simpler, because FCC already did part of the work.=
  This RFC can build on it.
> * Constructors are not supported.
> * But optional arguments and named placeholders are supported.
> * It includes pipe-based optimizations.
>=20
> Note: We realize that this is a non-trivial RFC coming late in the cycle. =
 We are proposing it now because, well, it's ready now.  If the discussion g=
oes smoothly, we're OK calling a vote on it for 8.5, especially as it would c=
omplement pipes so well.  If the discussion runs longer, we're also OK with t=
argeting 8.6 instead.  We'll see how that goes.
>=20
> <floor opens for discussion, Larry falls through the trap door>
>=20
> --
>  Larry Garfield
>  larry@garfieldtech.com
>=20

Hi Larry,=20

I noticed your list of places this applies says "all function/method calls" b=
ut then doesn't list object invocation  (__invoke magic method). I assume th=
at's just an oversight in the list of places it's applicable rather than an o=
mission in support?

Cheers

Stephen=20=