Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:128297
Feedback-ID: i8414410d:Fastmail
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2025 10:56:47 -0500
To: "php internals" <internals@lists.php.net>
Message-ID: <8f64b164-b3a6-4006-9d04-c2c09135c7d2@app.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <6cf2b42f-8cfd-49a0-bd73-35aedc54873c@app.fastmail.com>
References: <b2f466e6-b9d8-4aec-a275-e7ae7c4b67ff@app.fastmail.com>
 <6cf2b42f-8cfd-49a0-bd73-35aedc54873c@app.fastmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Partial Function Application v2
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: larry@garfieldtech.com ("Larry Garfield")

On Tue, Jul 22, 2025, at 3:02 PM, Larry Garfield wrote:

> Hi folks.  Just a quick update: We've made one small change to the RFC. 
>  Specifically, in order to prevent accidentally calling optional 
> arguments from callback locations like array_map() or array_find(), a 
> partial created with foo(?) will ignore any additional arguments passed 
> to it, and will not pass those through to the underlying function.  A 
> partial that uses foo(?, ...) will pass through whatever it gets.
>
> This is mainly to avoid passing an array key from those functions to a 
> callback function that has an optional second parameter, which is not 
> intended to get a key string.  In practice this is what most people 
> would expect would happen, but we're calling it out explicitly.  (I'm 
> not even sure it's a behavior change from what we had before, in 
> practice.)
>
> cf: 
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/partial_function_application_v2#extraneous_arguments
>
> It seems the discussion has quieted down and wasn't particularly 
> contentious to begin with (whew), so we're just about ready for a vote. 
>  However, Arnaud went on vacation and didn't remember to tell me when 
> he'd be back. :-)  So I'm going to wait a few more days just in case he 
> has any last minute comments, but start the vote either when he returns 
> or Monday the 28th, whichever comes first.  (That gets the vote 
> complete before the deadline for 8.5.)
>
> --Larry Garfield

Hi folks.  Arnaud and I have decided to hold off on the PFA vote for a while to give time to address late-arriving questions and finish off the implementation.  That means it's now pushed to 8.6, and I've updated the RFC accordingly.  We're not pausing though, so expect another update soon-ish.  Meanwhile, if anyone else wants to weigh in on the trailing args question or repositioning parameters question, now is the time.

--Larry Garfield