Re: RFC idea: using the void type to control maximum arity of user-defined functions

On Thu, Apr 4, 2024, at 3:49 PM, Tim Düsterhus wrote: > Hi > > On 4/4/24 17:40, Vinicius Dias wrote: >>> I like this concept, but instead of introducing a new syntax, have you >>> considered leveraging attributes in the same way that PHP 8.3 >>> introduced #[Override]? >>> >>> #[Nonvariadic] >>> function foo () {} >>> foo(42); // warning: foo() expects exactly 0 arguments, 1 given >>> >>> I think the intent would be clearer and it would avoid introducing a new syntax. >>> >> >> I agree that using an attribute would be better for this case. > > I disagree with an attribute being the right choice here. In contrast to > #[\Override], this proposal changes the behavior for the *caller* of the > function and likely also requires adjustments in child classes when > newly introduced in a parent class or interface. > > Thus it is part of the function's API and thus should be part of the > regular signature and not the attribute-based metadata. > > Best regards > Tim Düsterhus I would think following the pattern of dynamic properties would make the most sense. Require an opt-in via attribute, with deprecation period. And possibly just remove the functionality at some point in the future. The core issue here IMO isn't the behavior itself, but the inconsistency.. C-implemented functions reject extra args. PHP-implemented functions ignore them (modulo variadics). This is... a total mess that has bitten me more than I want to admit. Normalizing it one way or the other would be a win. --Larry Garfield