Re: [RFC] Display Function Arguments in Errors

Hi Am 2026-03-30 16:40, schrieb Calvin Buckley:

If I don't hear any additional feedback, I think I'll open this for voting at the end of the week.

I've looked once more into my “naming remark” and realized that the display_ prefix might actually be misleading (instead of “just” inconsistent) when compared to display_errors or display_startup_errors, because display_error_function_args does not control whether the arguments are *displayed*. It also controls whether or not the arguments are visible to a registered error_handler, which is quite different from just suppressing them from public display as done by display_errors. My suggestion of error_ignore_args thus still stands and I would likely vote against the RFC with the current naming (despite being in favor of the feature itself). Best regards Tim Düsterhus