Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:85520
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain pascal-martin.fr designates 91.121.85.26 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <55170A59.9010700@pascal-martin.fr>
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2015 21:08:57 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: internals@lists.php.net
References: <CAOsHV+uYLVuOhva_wpyGouHg5c8+ajko0m8CN1aU2HARcyga3A@mail.gmail.com> <CAOsHV+uO3nhy9UXotOamJ+0iskVUDhFAYZiZb-RbpCd0OXyYAw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOsHV+uO3nhy9UXotOamJ+0iskVUDhFAYZiZb-RbpCd0OXyYAw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV][RFC][VOTE] Strict Argument Count On Function Calls
From: mailing@pascal-martin.fr ("Pascal Martin, AFUP")

Le 16/03/2015 18:04, Marcio Almada a écrit :
> I had no time to reply all emails since yesterday, but right now we are
> having a voting with 2 "yes" votes vs 16 "no" votes.
>
> I think we all agree that the RFC won't pass and I'm withdrawing the RFC

Hi,

Even though it's a bit too late: thanks for your work on this!

At AFUP, we were +1 (by a rather large margin) on the idea of checking 
for additional arguments, considering it would help detect some 
(possible) future bugs. Seems we were going on the opposite direction of 
the votes on the RFC itself.

We didn't quite reach a consensus between notices and warnings, though 
-- mostly because they would *maybe* have helped detect *possible 
future* bugs.

-- 
Pascal MARTIN, AFUP - French UG
http://php-internals.afup.org/