On Fri, Oct 31, 2025, at 4:22 AM, Tim Düsterhus wrote: > Hi > > Am 2025-10-30 19:44, schrieb Larry Garfield: >> The one outstanding question is whether we allow reordering using named >> arguments or preserve the underlying order. Arnaud says either one is >> doable. So far, only 2 people have commented on it (favoring >> reordering). We still want feedback from more people to see if there >> really is a consensus one way or another. (2 people is too small a >> sample size to draw any conclusions.) > > It appears there is a larger (and unanimous) agreement. This should be > adjusted in the RFC then. Other than that, I've read through the RFC > once more and have the following comments:
Mm, yeah, it would appear I have been outvoted. :-) So be it. The RFC has been updated to include reordering, and Arnaud will update the implementation shortly. I expect this to be the last major change, so we'll likely call the vote in a little over 2 weeks, baring any additional feedback. > 1. In the //// Regular functions //// examples: > > I believe the `static` is missing from every example. Given that the > examples in the Overview at the start already have it, this might be a > mistake? Artifact of how many times this RFC has been edited. :-) I think I got them all now. > 2. // Placeholders may be named, too. Their order doesn't matter. > > This example will likely change given the reordering decision, but I'd > like to note a typo: The 's' and 'i' parameters in the PFAs are missing > their number. I ended up removing this example and replacing it with another anyway. > 3. (four(c: ?, d: 4, b: ?, a: 1))(2, 3); > > This is also a reordering example. Just listing it to make it easier for > you to find. thumbs-up.gif > 4. Constant expressions > > I assume that “nested” PFA will just work? A little more complex example > would be good, just to showcase what's possible. How about: > > public const BASE = 10; > > private \Closure $arrayToInt = \array_map(\intval(?, self::BASE), > ?), > > My understanding is that this should be valid. Mine as well. I'll add that example, and if Arnaud corrects me we can deal with it then. :-) > 5. Implementation notes and optimizations > > // Transpiles into: > > The `static` should definitely be added here, since you are specifically > talking about internal details. > > 6. Scoping > > Seeing the scoping section: Is it possible to partial a `parent::` call? > I never tried with FCC. I... have no idea. Presumably? I'll add it and wait for Arnuad to yell at me if not. :-) > All minor clarification bits. I'm super happy with the proposed > semantics once the “reordering” question is resolved. Huzzah! --Larry Garfield
