Re: [RFC] Partial Function Application v2

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