Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:68775
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.215.174 as permitted sender)
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2013 11:43:25 +0300
To: Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com>
Cc: Stas Malyshev <smalyshev@sugarcrm.com>, Sebastian Krebs
 <krebs.seb@gmail.com>, Sara Golemon <pollita@php.net>, Anthony Ferrara
 <ircmaxell@gmail.com>, "=?utf-8?Q?internals=40lists.php.net?="
 <internals@lists.php.net>
Message-ID: <61FCD6C4A31248078FEAD2BA73D7CD44@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAF+90c-D7OxSW+ei8xtHYKnRg048_KuBCtDHkh4bDqVNZ+YAcA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAyV7nFRfuu0dGnu0FV1ehkqwQR6=dUFSHMP=6CJsAVWghCADg@mail.gmail.com>
 <5220262A.6040702@sugarcrm.com>
 <CAESVnVr18CAAqr4oZHB9KKnAs9Ry-gQFsR2icE8XxLr8w+knNQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <5220437A.7050008@sugarcrm.com>
 <CALtuQzAjChxqOWNzkcd09c_UsoNe6XtCfTM6ADDoQMgZt-A_UA@mail.gmail.com>
 <5220D212.3010101@sugarcrm.com>
 <CAF+90c-D7OxSW+ei8xtHYKnRg048_KuBCtDHkh4bDqVNZ+YAcA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Subject: Re: Function autoloading
From: nvartolomei@gmail.com (Vartolomei Nicolae)

So you say you will create a file for every function you want to support autoloading?
As I already asked, tell us about realworld use case, for example where this could improve say big projects like Symfony or ZF.
There is no logic to add this functionality just because we can.



kindly,
nvartolomei


On Friday, August 30, 2013 at 8:38 PM, Nikita Popov wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 7:10 PM, Stas Malyshev <smalyshev@sugarcrm.com (mailto:smalyshev@sugarcrm.com)>wrote:
> 
> > Hi!
> > 
> > > Well, static methods aren't the same as functions.
> > 
> > The big difference being?
> 
> This seems to be the core of your argumentation in this thread: "Why don't
> you just use Foo::bar() instead of foo\bar()?"
> 
> In which case, I wonder why we have functions at all. We could just use
> static methods instead after all. Maybe we should deprecate function
> support?
> 
> On a more serious note: If you want an actual example of how functions can
> be easier to use than static methods, consider the "use function" RFC. Now
> that it's in, it is possible to directly import a function foo\bar() and
> use it with just bar(). Static methods allow no such thing. You always need
> to write the class name.
> 
> The reason why people currently resort to using static methods instead of
> functions is the fact that there is no autoloading for functions. With
> autoloading, functions become a lot easier to use.
> 
> Nikita