Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:93715 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 75126 invoked from network); 2 Jun 2016 12:01:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 2 Jun 2016 12:01:38 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=bobwei9@hotmail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=bobwei9@hotmail.com; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain hotmail.com designates 65.55.111.91 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: bobwei9@hotmail.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 65.55.111.91 blu004-omc2s16.hotmail.com Received: from [65.55.111.91] ([65.55.111.91:52027] helo=BLU004-OMC2S16.hotmail.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id B4/22-62101-22020575 for ; Thu, 02 Jun 2016 08:01:38 -0400 Received: from BLU437-SMTP74 ([65.55.111.71]) by BLU004-OMC2S16.hotmail.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(7.5.7601.23008); Thu, 2 Jun 2016 05:01:35 -0700 X-TMN: [y6pWa7mKIner67g1We/1Ibze3tN1nuDx] X-Originating-Email: [bobwei9@hotmail.com] Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.2 \(3112\)) In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2016 14:01:28 +0200 CC: PHP internals , Nikita Popov Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable References: To: Dmitry Stogov X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3112) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Jun 2016 12:01:32.0876 (UTC) FILETIME=[8144A0C0:01D1BCC6] Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Replace "Missing argument" warning with "Too few arguments" exception From: bobwei9@hotmail.com (Bob Weinand) > Am 01.06.2016 um 12:55 schrieb Dmitry Stogov : >=20 > hi, >=20 >=20 > Please take a look into the proposal. >=20 >=20 > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/too_few_args >=20 >=20 > The RFC is extremely simple (both proposal and implementation) and = almost completely described by the email subject. >=20 > I think, this mini-RFC doesn't need 2-weeks discussion period, so I'm = going to start the vote on next week. >=20 >=20 > Thanks. Dmitry. Very nice! Just a question: Does the RFC also impact calls to internal functions? = (With internal functions we don't have the problem as they're typically = immediately aborted, but it would be inconsistent with userland = functions to have once a warning, once an exception) Judging from the patch this isn't the case? (at least I see no related = changes) Thus I think the scope of the RFC is a bit too small. [and at least it = should be explicitly mentioned in the RFC if you decide against that]. Bob=