Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:93718 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 81164 invoked from network); 2 Jun 2016 12:31:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 2 Jun 2016 12:31:22 -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 65.55.111.97 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: bobwei9@hotmail.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 65.55.111.97 blu004-omc2s22.hotmail.com Received: from [65.55.111.97] ([65.55.111.97:64459] helo=BLU004-OMC2S22.hotmail.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 3C/53-62101-71720575 for ; Thu, 02 Jun 2016 08:31:20 -0400 Received: from BLU436-SMTP209 ([65.55.111.73]) by BLU004-OMC2S22.hotmail.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(7.5.7601.23008); Thu, 2 Jun 2016 05:31:15 -0700 X-TMN: [/bxyxVHJZt3c3JVXODX4WT+hpIzWtlge] X-Originating-Email: [bobwei9@hotmail.com] Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.2 \(3112\)) In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2016 14:31:09 +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 12:31:13.0172 (UTC) FILETIME=[A6683D40:01D1BCCA] Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Replace "Missing argument" warning with "Too few arguments" exception From: bobwei9@hotmail.com (Bob Weinand) > Am 02.06.2016 um 14:11 schrieb Dmitry Stogov : >=20 >=20 >=20 > On 06/02/2016 03:01 PM, Bob Weinand wrote: >>> 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! >>=20 >> 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) >>=20 >> Judging from the patch this isn't the case? (at least I see no = related changes) >>=20 >> 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]. >>=20 >> 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. >=20 > Thanks. Dmitry. Right, then the RFC should explicitly mention it. It only talks about = "function calls" in general right now, but doesn't restrict the scope to = userland functions only. The value is basically in having equal and consistent behavior (in = failure case) for all functions. I do not see it a must, but it would be a very-nice-to-have in my eyes. Bob=