Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:54599
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain googlemail.com designates 209.85.214.42 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <4E48430D.6070409@googlemail.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2011 23:50:05 +0200
Reply-To: sebastian.krebs.berlin@googlemail.com
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110617 Thunderbird/3.1.11
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
References: <CAH-PCH5YvyBWfKomU0RaJw2E-GVqPXOV2TZMN9EURfQvYxu54w@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1108141452460.4043@whisky> <CAF+90c-g8PLVvP2NYMbQcGCjNmPGN7tHdk5B8FpLp6JGik8tYQ@mail.gmail.com> <4E481136.3090508@sugarcrm.com> <4E483284.4010100@googlemail.com> <4E4838E1.3000006@sugarcrm.com>
In-Reply-To: <4E4838E1.3000006@sugarcrm.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: sebastian.krebs.berlin@googlemail.com (Sebastian Krebs)

Hi,

Am 14.08.2011 23:06, schrieb 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.

When I must use classes are for packaging functions (that aren't 
functions anymore, when I make methods out of them), what are namespaces 
for? I'm just curious ^^

> 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.

I just want to use functions. Whats wrong with that? Really: Thats all.

>> 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.

Its not (only) about grouping functions, its about using custom 
functions at all. Grouping things is always a good idea and with 
namespaces (not classes) it is already possible in a very clean and easy 
way. There is no need to misuse OOP for that. As far as I can see there 
is absolutely nothing new here. That functions/constants should be 
covered by autoloading is the only thing I would like to see in one 
future release.

>> language since ever. And (on the other hand) static methods are imo just
>> something different.
>
> How different?

Static methods are (static) methods and functions are functions. Classes 
can get extended [1] and have a state and such. In short: Both methods 
and functions come from two different paradigms (OOP and 
procedural/functional). Just saying "static methods are just grouped 
functions" is a little bit to less and will always feel like a hack to 
me. PHP calls itself "multiparadigm", but the prodecural part feels very 
neglected over the time.


Regards,
Sebastian



[1] Yes, I know, I can mark a class as "final", but this keyword is imo 
the most useless keyword ever ;)