On Wed, Aug 27, 2025, at 11:06 AM, Bob Weinand wrote: > Hey, > > On 27.8.2025 15:34:53, Kyle Katarn wrote: >> Hello, >> >> I handled the feedback received on the draft RCF >> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/clamp_v2 >> >> If I didn't forget anything this should be now ready for discussion. So I >> updated its status. >> >> There is an implementation proposal: >> https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/19434 >> And some draft for documentation here: >> https://github.com/php/doc-en/pull/4814 >> >> Thanks, > > > As others have noted before, what's the motivation of having the > to-be-clamped value as first parameter rather than infixed between min > and max? > > E.g. from CSS: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/clamp: > > `clamp(min, val, max)` > > Feels to me as the most natural order, too. > > > > You mention it was taken from the first RFC, but that one also did not > discuss the ordering in the first place either.
Some quick data points from momentary googling: CSS: clamp(min, val, max) Python: clamp(val, min, max) C++: clamp(val, min, max) Java: clamp(val, in, max) Javascript: clamp(val, min, max) C#: clamp(val, min, max) Kotlin: val.clamp(min, max) (as an extension function) Ruby: val.clamp(min, max) So it looks like CSS is the oddball here. We should follow the clear majority approach. (Kyle, feel free to include this in the RFC.) --Larry Garfield
