Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:39100 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 81632 invoked from network); 19 Jul 2008 15:40:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 19 Jul 2008 15:40:20 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=helly@php.net; spf=unknown; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=helly@php.net; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: unknown (pb1.pair.com: domain php.net does not designate 85.214.94.56 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: helly@php.net X-Host-Fingerprint: 85.214.94.56 aixcept.net Linux 2.6 Received: from [85.214.94.56] ([85.214.94.56:55061] helo=h1149922.serverkompetenz.net) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 6F/CF-13864-2EA02884 for ; Sat, 19 Jul 2008 11:40:20 -0400 Received: from MBOERGER-ZRH.corp.google.com (unknown [193.142.125.1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by h1149922.serverkompetenz.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBC8111EFD4; Sat, 19 Jul 2008 17:40:15 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 22:38:47 +0200 Reply-To: Marcus Boerger X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <78134337.20080717223847@marcus-boerger.de> To: Lukas Kahwe Smith CC: Stanislav Malyshev , Greg Beaver , PHP Developers Mailing List , Dmitry Stogov In-Reply-To: <859F4F21-EE69-4129-AA73-ADE44CC49746@pooteeweet.org> References: <486FA5FB.1000300@php.net> <4872B5D4.1000205@zend.com> <4877CE04.4070104@chiaraquartet.net> <487F8984.8030309@zend.com> <859F4F21-EE69-4129-AA73-ADE44CC49746@pooteeweet.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: towards a 5.3 release From: helly@php.net (Marcus Boerger) Hello Lukas, Thursday, July 17, 2008, 8:15:52 PM, you wrote: > On 17.07.2008, at 20:03, Stanislav Malyshev wrote: >>> autoload that is). At the same time people who care about >>> performance can still work around this behavior (then again those >>> that care about optimizations on this level probably do not use >>> autload to begin with). >> >> What's wrong with autoload? You sound like autoload is somehow >> contrary to performance, which is not true. > There is nothing wrong with autoload. However it adds overhead so if > you want super duper high performance, you use you use a different language. Unless you were refering to development time. Then autoload is pretty damn good. > explicit includes/ > requires with absolute paths instead. > regards, > Lukas Kahwe Smith > mls@pooteeweet.org Best regards, Marcus