Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:84300
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.217.179 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: marcio3w@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <CAGa2bXbgDcjXWgoDw_X61KDbeiV_tcHpGk5RFSFsnQ1-LSNVPw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAOsHV+uApxF=pQngonMppam2AEnW0Sm1ESAaB9exLH0K0hMBWA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGa2bXYx-MGjhHVkDRYsHSRR4b+x4ba5PVxdhw9W2B1z0fWCEQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOsHV+td_i5Z3JPmPF5WT8gAvhPFReO28L3TGPaYWgybSVnbSA@mail.gmail.com> <CAGa2bXbgDcjXWgoDw_X61KDbeiV_tcHpGk5RFSFsnQ1-LSNVPw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2015 16:07:58 -0300
Message-ID: <CAOsHV+tY4CmLD6tYt7R9eiNkBb9ibh4sjAVD0oysJTCuTY25Tw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Yasuo Ohgaki <yohgaki@ohgaki.net>
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0160a706a7435305107b2c8a
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV][RFC][DISCUSSION] Strict Argument Count
From: marcio.web2@gmail.com (Marcio Almada)

--089e0160a706a7435305107b2c8a
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi,

2015-03-03 16:48 GMT-03:00 Yasuo Ohgaki <yohgaki@ohgaki.net>:

> Hi Marcio,
>
>
I understand your reasons. Compatibility is important, but  detecting
> function body contents and
> suppressing errors by engine is too hacky. Raising E_DEPRECATE/E_STRICT b=
y
> function definition seems
> the way to go. IMO.
>
>
Just one correction, we are not "suppressing" the warning. It just emits
the warning conditionally and that's not hacky at all. We already have
other situations where warnings are emitted just when certain conditions
are met.


> [yohgaki@dev github-php-src]$ php -r 'function f(...$a) {var_dump($a);};
> f(1,2,3);'
> array(3) {
>   [0]=3D>
>   int(1)
>   [1]=3D>
>   int(2)
>   [2]=3D>
>   int(3)
> }
> [yohgaki@dev github-php-src]$ php -r 'function f($a) {var_dump($a);};
> f(1,2,3);'
> int(1)
>
> is current behavior. The latter would be
>
> [yohgaki@dev github-php-src]$ php -r 'function f($a) {var_dump($a);};
> f(1,2,3);'
> Deprecated: Excessive argument for f() without "...",  called in Command
> line code on line 1 and defined in Command line code on line 1
> int(1)
>
>
Using only the function signatures, overlooking *func_get_args()*, would be
in practice an indirect deprecation of* func_get_args()* and that's not
negotiable at all, at least on this RFC.

We simply can't do this now because it would be an enormous BC break and
PHP 5.5, which has no "first class" variadics, is still supported. I
understand the reasons you want to do it, but I think we should wait a bit
more before discussing a possible *func_get_args* deprecation (if it will
ever be deprecated). That's not the point addresses by this RFC.


> User may have a lot of E_DEPRECATED errors anyway if strict scalar type
> hint passes.
>

That's highly speculative. We don't even know if the proposal of scalar
typehints with BC breaks will ever get voted, neither if it will pass. It's
not a good idea to take decisions based upon that. Don't you think so?


> I like the idea. Please use function definition for errors. (E_DEPRECTED
> or E_STRICT whichever
> is suitable)
>
>
I'm proposing a warning because currently PHP internal functions already
use a warning to indicate wrong argument count. Using E_STRICT or whichever
would look inconsistent IMMO at a first sight. But I think that E_STRICT ||
E_WARNING || E_DEPRECATED is a very debatable topic.

Regards,
>
> --
> Yasuo Ohgaki
> yohgaki@ohgaki.net
>
>
M=C3=A1rcio.

--089e0160a706a7435305107b2c8a--