Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:93717
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain zend.com designates 157.56.111.114 as permitted sender)
To: Bob Weinand <bobwei9@hotmail.com>
References: <CY1PR0201MB1786C24A2569B71BB6C716FBBF470@CY1PR0201MB1786.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
 <BLU437-SMTP74E7FD7F539C81C6C54EB6E2580@phx.gbl>
CC: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>, Nikita Popov <nikic@php.net>
Message-ID: <e1c11441-92ee-e857-149d-faf6fb310d86@zend.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2016 15:11:06 +0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/45.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <BLU437-SMTP74E7FD7F539C81C6C54EB6E2580@phx.gbl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
SpamDiagnosticOutput: 1:23
SpamDiagnosticMetadata: NSPM
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Jun 2016 12:11:21.3212 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BLUPR0201MB1780
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Replace "Missing argument" warning with "Too few
 arguments" exception
From: dmitry@zend.com (Dmitry Stogov)



On 06/02/2016 03:01 PM, Bob Weinand wrote:
>> Am 01.06.2016 um 12:55 schrieb Dmitry Stogov <dmitry@zend.com>:
>>
>> hi,
>>
>>
>> Please take a look into the proposal.
>>
>>
>> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/too_few_args
>>
>>
>> The RFC is extremely simple (both proposal and implementation) and almost completely described by the email subject.
>>
>> I think, this mini-RFC doesn't need 2-weeks discussion period, so I'm going to start the vote on next week.
>>
>>
>> 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
The RFC doesn't propose to change behavior of internal functions.
In case of wrong number of arguments, they are not executed anyway.
It may make sense to change their behavior as well, but I don't see a 
big value.

Thanks. Dmitry.