Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:68782
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 74.125.82.51 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <61FCD6C4A31248078FEAD2BA73D7CD44@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>
 <61FCD6C4A31248078FEAD2BA73D7CD44@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2013 20:03:01 +0200
Message-ID: <CALtuQzCeiYfb_cnRTv2OUZ3yqQuHGoMzrtxyXGxhUtRxRKzSQQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Vartolomei Nicolae <nvartolomei@gmail.com>
Cc: Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com>, Stas Malyshev <smalyshev@sugarcrm.com>, 
	Sara Golemon <pollita@php.net>, Anthony Ferrara <ircmaxell@gmail.com>, 
	"internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e016347faceb14904e54228a6
Subject: Re: Function autoloading
From: krebs.seb@gmail.com (Sebastian Krebs)

--089e016347faceb14904e54228a6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

2013/8/31 Vartolomei Nicolae <nvartolomei@gmail.com>

> So you say you will create a file for every function you want to support
> autoloading?
>

I already _have_ create files for functions of a namespace... Closed
source.


> As I already asked, tell us about realworld use case, for example where
> this could improve say big projects like Symfony or ZF.
>

Not everything can be found in the 5 most popular frameworks.


> There is no logic to add this functionality just because we can.
>

The lack of logic is: Why is it actually missing?

- Classes: Triggers an autoloader
- Functions: Needs manual handling
- Constants: Needs manual handling

That is at first inconsistent. The need of "require_once"s is inefficient
and error prone.

Regards,
Sebastian


>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>


-- 
github.com/KingCrunch

--089e016347faceb14904e54228a6--