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:
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
--------------------
All minor clarification bits. I'm super happy with the proposed
semantics once the “reordering” question is resolved.
Best regards
Tim Düsterhus
