Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:54597 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 35185 invoked from network); 14 Aug 2011 21:06:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 14 Aug 2011 21:06:44 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain sugarcrm.com designates 67.192.241.123 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 67.192.241.123 smtp123.dfw.emailsrvr.com Linux 2.6 Received: from [67.192.241.123] ([67.192.241.123:57936] helo=smtp123.dfw.emailsrvr.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id F6/E4-05730-4E8384E4 for ; Sun, 14 Aug 2011 17:06:44 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp2.relay.dfw1a.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 4A85E782C5; Sun, 14 Aug 2011 17:06:42 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: OK Received: by smtp2.relay.dfw1a.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: smalyshev-AT-sugarcrm.com) with ESMTPSA id 0CA7578249; Sun, 14 Aug 2011 17:06:41 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4E4838E1.3000006@sugarcrm.com> Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2011 14:06:41 -0700 Organization: SugarCRM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "sebastian.krebs.berlin@googlemail.com" CC: "internals@lists.php.net" References: <4E481136.3090508@sugarcrm.com> <4E483284.4010100@googlemail.com> In-Reply-To: <4E483284.4010100@googlemail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Function autoloading through spl_autoload* From: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com (Stas Malyshev) Hi! On 8/14/11 1:39 PM, Sebastian Krebs wrote: > Counterquestion: Why shouldn't I use functions? They exists, they are Because if you want to use functions of similar nature organized in a package, that's what classes are used for. You want to do something that goes contrary to how language is designed and then you want language to change to fit your wrong usage. I don't see how it's good for the language. > discussed to get removed at all. It feels a little bit weird to me, that > I need to explain, why one wants to use functions, that are part of the Please don't distort my words - nobody asked you why you need to use functions in general. I asked why you don't use mechanisms for grouping functions that exist in the language and work just fine with existing semantics and instead want new semantics that has its own problems. > language since ever. And (on the other hand) static methods are imo just > something different. How different? -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227