Hey Larry,
On 16.11.2025 21:51:59, Larry Garfield wrote:
On Sat, Jun 28, 2025, at 12:06 AM, Larry Garfield wrote:
Hi folks. Arnaud and I would like to present take-2 at Partial
Function Application.
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/partial_function_application_v2
It is largely similar to the previous PFA proposal from 2021, though
there are a number of changes. Most notably:
* The implementation is simpler, because FCC already did part of the
work. This RFC can build on it.
* Constructors are not supported.
* But optional arguments and named placeholders are supported.
* It includes pipe-based optimizations.
Note: We realize that this is a non-trivial RFC coming late in the
cycle. We are proposing it now because, well, it's ready now. If the
discussion goes smoothly, we're OK calling a vote on it for 8.5,
especially as it would complement pipes so well. If the discussion
runs longer, we're also OK with targeting 8.6 instead. We'll see how
that goes.
<floor opens for discussion, Larry falls through the trap door>
It's been just over 2 weeks since the last comment in the thread, and the last
change was made (allowing for parameter reordering). Please consider this the
Intent to Vote post; I'll be calling the vote sometime probably late Tuesday or
on Wednesday, baring any new issues before then.
--Larry Garfield
I've just gave the RFC another deep read, and found only mentions of
pass-by-ref. But not return-by-ref, and neither does the implementation
handle this case:
# ./sapi/cli/php -r 'function &r(&$a) { return $a; } $a = 1; $b =
&r($a); ++$b; var_dump($a);'
int(2)
# ./sapi/cli/php -r 'function &r(&$a) { return $a; } $a = 1; $b =
&r(?)($a); ++$b; var_dump($a);'
Notice: Only variables should be assigned by reference in Command line
code on line 1
int(1)
Was this an oversight or intentionally omitted in the RFC? If it was,
I'd like to hear the reasoning on this.
Thank you,
Bob
