Thanks Larry!
On 27.8.2025 18:40:51, Larry Garfield wrote:
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
Indeed, that makes sense then. I must admit that I've only ever been
using the clamp from CSS, but never from other languages. (I still think
value in the middle makes more sense, but I guess that's me then, and I
won't object.)
Then yes, please note it in the RFC :-)
Bob
