Re: [RFC] Partial Function Application v2
| From: | Tim Düsterhus | Date: | Fri, 17 Oct 2025 08:24:04 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: [RFC] Partial Function Application v2 | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Groups: | php.internals |
| Request: | Send a blank email to internals+get-128859@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
Hi
Am 2025-10-13 19:00, schrieb Arnaud Le Blanc:
Understood, thank you for the clarification. Please add this information to the RFC (ideally with examples of the possible cases, e.g. the passing of the- How does it interact withgetClosureUsedVariables() and other introspection functionality will report any used var as usual. Used vars are named after the parameter if there is no collision. But this should not be considered API as this may change. For instance, I want to optimize-out used vars for parameters that are pre-filled with a literal. It would be possible to hide used vars of a PFA in Reflection.ReflectionFunctionAbstract::getClosureUsedVariables()? - Same question for other scope introspection functionality (e.g. Xdebug).
Closure object). It's fine if you explicitly say “we consider this an implementation detail, but this is how it currently works”. This is also useful information to have if a user reports a bug in PFA that relates to this, so that we can tell them “what you are doing is not guaranteed to work, please don't”.
Best regards
Tim Düsterhus