Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:121781
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3774.200.91.1.1\))
In-Reply-To: <CALKiJKrJRWyEFkk1-A-4XOS2OJ6rzsj6D55LMcPrOFFSbRidLw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2023 21:20:36 +0700
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <BEBA905E-CF22-4F1E-8CAD-E51B7D480BE0@koalephant.com>
References: <79d675e3-95b4-40bb-baf4-3e1c998f5390@online-presence.ca>
 <CAPTD5yH9Wk=ADvCRf4K3SVNm+hfyarHr8_4hQAMbt-zDH4zxkA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGBsUreqkyoohwL0B7o8WFQLLcekMryDmDRQ1ksoF2FZCt9WOA@mail.gmail.com>
 <34979AED-893F-45DD-B641-A9F4F39B2928@newclarity.net>
 <2D505086-6AD9-4596-A515-85B50F5D12C5@koalephant.com>
 <CALKiJKpKk0vPhE6Q6H=BK4sy5SLsCBG0aET8X5ZiFo_=v+bLyw@mail.gmail.com>
 <C6AEED2E-197A-4C55-8139-1EB1AB374146@koalephant.com>
 <CALKiJKrJRWyEFkk1-A-4XOS2OJ6rzsj6D55LMcPrOFFSbRidLw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Rowan Tommins <rowan.collins@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC Proposal - static modifier for classes
From: php-lists@koalephant.com (Stephen Reay)



> On 23 Nov 2023, at 19:42, Rowan Tommins <rowan.collins@gmail.com> =
wrote:
>=20
> On Thu, 23 Nov 2023 at 11:48, Stephen Reay <stephen@koalephant.com> =
wrote:
>=20
>>=20
>> Respectively, I disagree that it's "not a big problem" if your goal =
is to
>> encourage people to use regular functions over classes with static =
methods.
>>=20
>=20
>=20
> Just to be clear, my answer was specifically addressing your point =
about
> using Composer as an argument for not including things.
>=20
> I was not saying "... and therefore the argument is true", only "... =
and
> therefore we can discuss the argument without mentioning Composer if =
we
> want to".
>=20
>=20

Fair enough, apologies for misunderstanding what you were saying there.

>=20
>> PHP ships with a built in class autoloader function, and pretending =
that
> using 'require_once' everywhere a function is used, is just as easy =
for the
> developer seem disingenuous to be honest.
>=20
> PHP ships with *the ability to configure* an autoloading function; it =
will
> not load any files without you first telling it where to look.

I'm talking about php's builtin *implementation* of an autoloader not =
just support for the *concept* of class autoloading using a userland =
function.

Out of the box, with no package manager or module loader or anything, =
you can do as little as call `spl_autoload_register` with no arguments, =
and have working class autoloading. Yes you *may* also end up setting =
the include path and/or autoload extensions at runtime, or even writing =
a custom autoload implementation - but none of that is required for it =
to work.

> The
> workaround being proposed is not to use require_once every time you =
want a
> function, it's to use require_once in the same place you configure =
your
> autoloader.
>=20
> I totally agree that we can debate whether that workaround is =
sufficient.
> I'm just trying to frame that debate as "autoloading vs require", =
rather
> than a distraction of "Composer vs something else".
>=20

Ok, again, apologies for the misunderstanding of the point you're making =
- and thank you, I agree that is a better way to frame the debate, when =
it comes to language / stdlib features.







>=20
> Regards,
> --=20
> Rowan Tommins
> [IMSoP]