Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:130501 X-Original-To: internals@lists.php.net Delivered-To: internals@lists.php.net Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (php-smtp4.php.net [45.112.84.5]) by lists.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5165F1A00BC for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2026 19:00:27 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=php.net; s=mail; t=1774897231; bh=1fdHIZFuGh5s1cqy7jKjPbBcczUcFO5ewOS8IcJCbFw=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To:From; b=kpTALsZdIfhHmjY/5ebA1V62pz4GKBEP2EjmRxVmw+gIsT/jdeoqHfJICJ9qj8xwz ZcuHCvbVSmCZpChe5bd5d9dcovn8euUfxbq41yXmJL6oaBBflEXLXbKmtKWRc1wb52 /1R7bhv5oyJngeY4l0sQfkRQXrA87GD1wg5SUn1O4fQpsnKwJUSqunbYAaIZEgxO7i 05XnBeCxmY2E85R3cAN83XWUL9jEEVoA31W9h2DxIQ9TS2RjHdie1BxvNxOkcRSTK3 zRLIs1hEwtxjhpL3Tpy6g/zJcWB260hyrh4Zl0D7AyR84tW3YoMc5przCHxXHWsckN FqeaWjqagP6TA== Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2642E1801E8 for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2026 19:00:30 +0000 (UTC) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.1 (2024-03-25) on php-smtp4.php.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50,DMARC_MISSING, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=4.0.1 X-Spam-Virus: No X-Envelope-From: Received: from supercat.cmpct.info (supercat.cmpct.info [71.19.146.230]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2026 19:00:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtpclient.apple (fctnnbsc38w-142-134-101-31.dhcp-dynamic.fibreop.nb.bellaliant.net [142.134.101.31]) by supercat.cmpct.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9C0F942EE6; Mon, 30 Mar 2026 19:00:20 +0000 (UTC) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Precedence: list list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: List-Id: x-ms-reactions: disallow Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3864.400.21\)) Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Display Function Arguments in Errors In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2026 16:00:09 -0300 Cc: PHP internals Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-ID: <7D440981-F647-4432-B1C7-AE6FC36609F6@cmpct.info> References: <939CFA28-A6FF-433F-85A0-B83345CEF4A6@cmpct.info> <0598E8E2-F795-45E4-9177-0CA1B1808008@cmpct.info> To: =?utf-8?Q?Tim_D=C3=BCsterhus?= X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3864.400.21) From: calvin@cmpct.info (Calvin Buckley) On Mar 30, 2026, at 12:24=E2=80=AFPM, Tim D=C3=BCsterhus = wrote: >=20 > Hi >=20 > Am 2026-03-30 16:40, schrieb Calvin Buckley: >> If I don't hear any additional feedback, I think I'll open this for >> voting at the end of the week. >=20 > I've looked once more into my =E2=80=9Cnaming remark=E2=80=9D and = realized that the `display_` prefix might actually be misleading = (instead of =E2=80=9Cjust=E2=80=9D inconsistent) when compared to = `display_errors` or `display_startup_errors`, because = `display_error_function_args` does not control whether the arguments are = *displayed*. It also controls whether or not the arguments are visible = to a registered error_handler, which is quite different from just = suppressing them from public display as done by `display_errors`. >=20 > My suggestion of `error_ignore_args` thus still stands and I would = likely vote against the RFC with the current naming (despite being in = favor of the feature itself). >=20 > Best regards > Tim D=C3=BCsterhus I've renamed the INI option per your suggestion. This does invert the semantics (matching the one for exceptions), so I took some care when editing. I'll update the PR accordingly soon.=