Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:128866
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: list
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3864.100.1.1.5\))
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Partial Function Application v2
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2025 16:51:11 +0200
References: <b2f466e6-b9d8-4aec-a275-e7ae7c4b67ff@app.fastmail.com>
 <13830641-0fb9-4de9-94ed-8873045ef820@app.fastmail.com>
To: php internals <internals@lists.php.net>
In-Reply-To: <13830641-0fb9-4de9-94ed-8873045ef820@app.fastmail.com>
Message-ID: <C1FB2BA4-192A-4A9F-8A13-E0D7D2EB9EE5@wcflabs.de>
From: josh@wcflabs.de (=?utf-8?Q?Joshua_R=C3=BCsweg?=)



> On 9. Oct 2025, at 20:54, Larry Garfield <larry@garfieldtech.com> =
wrote:
>=20
> One outstanding question is whether to allow reordering of parameters =
in the PFA closure by using named arguments.  With this implementation, =
Arnaud says it's possible to do if we decide to.  I am still concerned =
that it would create too much complexity and confusion in practice.  But =
we're willing to go with a broad consensus if it emerges.

Hi

I also find it confusing if I define a different parameter order in the =
partial function and then this order is automatically overridden to the =
original order rather than being used. When I consciously change the =
parameter order, I expect this order to be preserved in the resulting =
function. That's the behavior I would expect as a developer.

Cheers

Joshua R=C3=BCsweg=