Re: [RFC] Display Function Arguments in Errors

On Mar 30, 2026, at 12:24 PM, Tim Düsterhus <tim@bastelstu.be> wrote: > > 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 Hg/ƍ'�lnd? > ��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 I've renamed the INI option per your suggestion. This does invert the semantics (matching the one for exceptions), so I took some care when editing. I'll update the PR accordingly soon.