Re: [RFC] [Discussion] Improve callbacks in ext/dom and ext/xsl

Hi Tim On 11/11/23 16:32, Tim Düsterhus wrote: > Hi > > On 11/7/23 20:32, Niels Dossche wrote: >> I'm opening the discussion for my RFC "Improve callbacks in ext/dom and >> ext/xsl". >> RFC link: >> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/improve_callbacks_dom_and_xsl > > Some question that I believe are not answered: > > 1. > > $xpath->registerPhpFunctions([ >   "foo" => ... > ]); > > $xpath->registerPhpFunctions([ >   "foo" => ... > ]); > > Is this an error due to the duplicate definition or will the last 'foo' win? The last 'foo' will win, such that you can override previous definitions. > > 2. > > $xpath->registerPhpFunctions([]); > > Is this an error or a noop? > This is a no-op, just like it is the case in current PHP versions. > 3. > > Would it make sense to deprecate passing a string as "Future Scope"? Simplifying the > method signature would also allow to simplify the documentation in the long run and registering a > string is trivially fixed by adding square brackets. Maybe, although I personally don't hate it that much. > > In fact looking at the existing documentation at > https://www.php.net/manual/en/domxpath.registerphpfunctions.php, > what's the difference between 'php:function()' and 'php:functionString()'? The difference is in the returned result. php:functionString() will case the result to a string automatically for you, while php:function() just returns the result as-is. > > Best regards > Tim Düsterhus Kind regards Niels