On Mar 30, 2026, at 12:24 PM, Tim Düsterhus <[email protected]> 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 `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.
