Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:124947 X-Original-To: internals@lists.php.net Delivered-To: internals@lists.php.net Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (php-smtp4.php.net [45.112.84.5]) by qa.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C3CFD1A00B7 for ; Thu, 15 Aug 2024 16:19:06 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=php.net; s=mail; t=1723738853; bh=a6x7cVjnxrbd7Y7jhNodEnHGo/Jqc4+vp1/hYO1l5zg=; h=From:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:Cc:To:References:From; b=kLpzsc51beP+KtZOmX3VmUnMcmzIyM4aRCSCqW4ok3wRm+wJ1FFWKs+I5jZrB2mUu 0yOlsHtidRG4/Ky34SoblZ90Y/Z0aFUea/HNvrRfMNOtjPVPiT9z3M8bz55VNky4Gv 85fuWLPH2aVp5M82jXgQbxPkt5rd7USqLe+G7JRTVFvRwi/13PsXb+S3LkxtPHloYU ThjokoLfE2girKVqkqm5+aLVaphVea5LDZ7bUMuk+mS5UcrG9Ji82r0PmBc0dq1WKK k2YE+XxoZNV9kz1KBtakLC/gCoK8M6g33BMWYuPANsu7HEycI36KdXBOMhIbXEVBIZ EYL60/oK8vzQg== Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCC3D180078 for ; Thu, 15 Aug 2024 16:20:51 +0000 (UTC) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 (2022-12-13) on php-smtp4.php.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50,DMARC_MISSING, HTML_MESSAGE,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=4.0.0 X-Spam-Virus: No X-Envelope-From: Received: from mail1.25mail.st (mail1.25mail.st [206.123.115.54]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS for ; Thu, 15 Aug 2024 16:20:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtpclient.apple (unknown [49.48.240.75]) by mail1.25mail.st (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3001460450; Thu, 15 Aug 2024 16:18:57 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <845F3549-B1D7-408B-86A5-DE4CA6FE97BD@koalephant.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_F6D84A0D-D12A-4C05-9F60-5F0280C71B43" Precedence: bulk list-help: list-post: List-Id: internals.lists.php.net x-ms-reactions: disallow Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3776.700.51\)) Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] function autoloading v4 RFC Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2024 23:18:44 +0700 In-Reply-To: <2716f729-4008-4f75-8412-861d8960b746@app.fastmail.com> Cc: internals@lists.php.net To: Rob Landers References: <2716f729-4008-4f75-8412-861d8960b746@app.fastmail.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3776.700.51) From: php-lists@koalephant.com (Stephen Reay) --Apple-Mail=_F6D84A0D-D12A-4C05-9F60-5F0280C71B43 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > On 15 Aug 2024, at 22:22, Rob Landers wrote: >=20 > Hello internals, >=20 > I've decided to attempt an RFC for function autoloading. After reading = hundreds of ancient (and recent) emails relating to the topic along with = several abandoned RFCs from the past, and after much review, I've = decided to put forth a variation of a previous RFC, as it seemed the = least ambitious and the most likely to work: >=20 > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/function_autoloading4 >=20 > Please let me know what you think. An implementation should be along = before opening it for a vote (now that I realize how important that is). >=20 > =E2=80=94 Rob Hi Rob, I like the simplicity of this, however your RFC doesn't document the = changes required to `spl_autoload`[1] to allow it to keep working with = this new functionality. The same issue (unexpected additional argument) potentially affects = userland autoloaders too, but obviously the individual authors can fix = that themselves (whether this would count as a BC break is not = immediately clear to me) Slightly tangentially, you may also want to look at a change to = `spl_autoload_call` to accept a `SPL_AUTOLOAD_*` argument, so that it = works consistently. Cheers Stephen 1: https://www.php.net/spl_autoload --Apple-Mail=_F6D84A0D-D12A-4C05-9F60-5F0280C71B43 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8

On 15 Aug 2024, at 22:22, Rob Landers = <rob@bottled.codes> wrote:

Hello = internals,

I've decided to attempt an RFC for function = autoloading. After reading hundreds of ancient (and recent) emails = relating to the topic along with several abandoned RFCs from the past, = and after much review, I've decided to put forth a variation of a = previous RFC, as it seemed the least ambitious and the most likely to = work:


Please let me know what you think. An = implementation should be along before opening it for a vote (now that I = realize how important that is).

=E2=80=94 = Rob

Hi = Rob,

I like the simplicity of this, however = your RFC doesn't document the changes required to `spl_autoload`[1] to = allow it to keep working with this new = functionality.

The same issue (unexpected = additional argument) potentially affects userland autoloaders too, but = obviously the individual authors can fix that themselves (whether this = would count as a BC break is not immediately clear to = me)


Slightly tangentially, you = may also want to look at a change to `spl_autoload_call` to accept a = `SPL_AUTOLOAD_*` argument, so that it works = consistently.

Cheers

Ste= phen


= --Apple-Mail=_F6D84A0D-D12A-4C05-9F60-5F0280C71B43--