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
