[Vote] Partial Function Application v2

> On Thu, Nov 20, 2025, at 3:59 PM, Larry Garfield wrote: >> I hereby open the vote on Partial Function Application: >> >> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/partial_function_application_v2 >> >> The vote will be open for a little over 2 weeks, automatically closing >> at 2025-12-05 T 12:00:00, UTC. (That's 2 weeks and a couple hours, >> just to be safe.) >> >> -- >> Larry Garfield >> larry@garfieldtech.com > > And as requested off-list, the discussion thread is here: > > https://externals.io/message/127781 > > --Larry Garfield

> Hi > > On 11/20/25 22:59, Larry Garfield wrote: >> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/partial_function_application_v2 > > As part of my work on the PFA-for-$this RFC I noticed one thing that is > left undefined in the RFC text and AFAICT not currently tested with the > implementation PR, but appears to “just work” is late-static binding > with `static::`: > > <?php > > class P { > public static function m(string $a): void { > echo __METHOD__, PHP_EOL; > var_dump($a); > } > > public static function get() { > return static::m(?); > } > } > > class C extends P { > public static function m(string|array $b): void { > echo __METHOD__, PHP_EOL; > var_dump($b); > } > } > > P::get()(a: 'a'); > C::get()(b: []); > > This correctly results in: > > P::m > string(1) "a" > C::m > array(0) { > } > > being output. > > Can you please make sure to include this as an Erratum within the RFC > text (and also make sure it gets a proper test in the PR, including all > possible OPcache variations)? > > Best regards > Tim Düsterhus