Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:95433
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.213.196 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CANaX5nfGzFsYue8J6yUpNnEYzgUTGj2g-BMWsw1cyahPH=fmmg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CANaX5nfGzFsYue8J6yUpNnEYzgUTGj2g-BMWsw1cyahPH=fmmg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2016 18:45:08 +0200
Message-ID: <CAF+90c_30gzmMXKT0XhZDaTK277uV5edStfka2YVE2ia0xpK9Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Davey Shafik <davey@php.net>
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114f3fba1a8911053ad401d1
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Reverting "Too Few Arguments Exception" RFC
From: nikita.ppv@gmail.com (Nikita Popov)

--001a114f3fba1a8911053ad401d1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Aug 24, 2016 9:55 AM, "Davey Shafik" <davey@php.net> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Given this thread: http://externals.io/thread/233
>
> I'm not happy with the state of this going into RC1 next week, and without
> changes (such as the patch I provided), I would like to revert this change
> and leave it for 7.2.
>
> My patch will _retain_ BC for internal functions with non strict_types
> (except for the error message, which can be reconciled), and for functions
> that previously threw a TypeError, ArgumentCountError is a subclass so BC
> is preserved there also.
>
> The issue is that the array functions that do this argument count checking
> themselves and still issue a warning, regardless of strict_types.
>
> We can leave the original behavior for array functions, but they then
> differ from other internals functions.
>
> It is a BC break for userland functions (as per the RFC), throwing an
> ArgumentCountError regardless of strict_types.
>
> At this point, we _must_ come to consensus by Monday to get it into RC1
(if
> there are changes needed) or we should remove it from 7.1. Also, I would
> like someone more experienced to review my patch.
>
> - Davey

I have some trouble understanding what the issue is here. The mentioned RFC
affects only userland functions, so the non-standard behavior of some array
functions shouldn't matter.

Personally I am entirely indifferent as to what exception gets thrown when
too little arguments are passed -- this is a type of error that should not
be caught by anything but catch-all handlers.

Inability to provide a more specific exception should not be a blocker for
this, especially as this is beyond the scope of the original RFC.

Nikita

--001a114f3fba1a8911053ad401d1--