Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:120045 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 97974 invoked from network); 16 Apr 2023 16:22:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 16 Apr 2023 16:22:13 -0000 Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id EADDF1804D5 for ; Sun, 16 Apr 2023 09:22:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on php-smtp4.php.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-ASN: AS15169 209.85.128.0/17 X-Spam-Virus: No X-Envelope-From: Received: from mail-ej1-f53.google.com (mail-ej1-f53.google.com [209.85.218.53]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS for ; Sun, 16 Apr 2023 09:22:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ej1-f53.google.com with SMTP id a5so1571381ejb.6 for ; Sun, 16 Apr 2023 09:22:12 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=basereality-com.20221208.gappssmtp.com; s=20221208; t=1681662132; x=1684254132; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=v4WGSNhpcIxoCZsO3dKFtTxp+bhZ175SjUoQEsQYBHw=; b=oyN73ZYsk3Y6vV7A6+hbsWeaYBMPEvBAtcnHR4VHLMnlcWTTD4gwghfqq8USQ6Pjv1 2B6DzH/R+oxWO7MRyZLyNR/nNoicfZtqSc3urpBQCCPti+aEUU6O7rY4021RyiKh/P2a FqrFmes0HmsH2rUvZxVj4P6Kdqbmq0hGtWkpBII2MiTwnyWqIOl9Ov3CajfMASSrUGWg KrArl5zZxpk+/N2TJ0JZFnVKbz5BB7x7n10j41OCF58iO8w+JkFzYTyPZdwEA2xyNWB8 C4LkEs0eoKp+J1zSyvFNhipWFWJiXU/hhkNX5XnEN+/SULn/CPsNq63z+2f1NwpYW/qV jvzA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1681662132; x=1684254132; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=v4WGSNhpcIxoCZsO3dKFtTxp+bhZ175SjUoQEsQYBHw=; b=aVJGAdliMIsbHH8+BU1ESEeotMBo/wqdjGCa6TaBdC/9tlDn9sHN5pU5RYjXnN4CV2 840Ee6Okk0AXIHkb9ixBzmBqHj9S/qHUMGbVgm9IAadDTQXWqevfDP0R5Yt/RH5X3Fef CVWLCmVcerA6memN663/kOHCLE/S5cHRZC/9UVjqY8xEZZ5FvOgI43j3AN3nO5oU88IR +83K1S+xFloZUw32OGCV2loAJrIR5zzssqTHqCvgls7HeiiimteyYJbdnv1of4Tp8wif NdH0VKzTxB6lW22N/eFCOuyZS6zvQolp1Y4NvcgbW+xpDgJAphx9md8wfGNAuUYdp4MW qwRg== X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9dOxX28oeFuU0Wbr9jzH7vpd6A2tKJdI5X4xKUi9Muc/66hM5NQ q+Js7E2sSbx5qBE/jZONgF0yJCQN1791E7LTLyei2A== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350brRNYZQXKt+0pxE9SK5KGNxa24sUfQ8k5L6/FTbNrWirZFASAx5gfehU10H2QTPvDAEnqWFQge1JK0h5bHquc= X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:80d8:b0:8d1:9162:514a with SMTP id a24-20020a17090680d800b008d19162514amr2328839ejx.8.1681662131723; Sun, 16 Apr 2023 09:22:11 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <3b7db03a-1cad-3762-b0ea-d33618be9644@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2023 17:22:01 +0100 Message-ID: To: Jordi Boggiano Cc: internals@lists.php.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] New core autoloading mechanism with support for function autoloading From: Danack@basereality.com (Dan Ackroyd) On Thu, 13 Apr 2023 at 11:39, Jordi Boggiano wrote: > > On 2023-04-12 22:26, Rowan Tommins wrote: > > I could just about live with that example changing so that the > > fallback was cached, but I definitely don't think an explicit call > > like \foo\strlen('x') should become an implicit alias for > > \strlen('x'), which is apparently the current proposal. > > > > I really like the majority of this proposal, but right now would vote > > against it based on that. > > > I agree here, I missed that fact while reviewing the RFC as I just > understood it as an internal cache that \foo\strlen => \strlen, but > function_exists('foo\strlen') should still return false IMO until it is > defined, and once it is defined the cache should be busted. Thanks for the code example. Code is a great of being clear... particularly when I've gotten the wrong end of the stick. Yeah, that would be a BC break. For now, I'll update the RFC words to say that, but that means we need to go and do some thinking, to figure out how to proceed. cheers Dan Ack