Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:70632 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 74427 invoked from network); 14 Dec 2013 00:41:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 14 Dec 2013 00:41:55 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=ajf@ajf.me; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=ajf@ajf.me; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain ajf.me designates 198.187.29.233 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: ajf@ajf.me X-Host-Fingerprint: 198.187.29.233 imap1.ox.registrar-servers.com Received: from [198.187.29.233] ([198.187.29.233:48561] helo=imap1.ox.registrar-servers.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id A1/81-00859-259ABA25 for ; Fri, 13 Dec 2013 19:41:55 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by oxmail.registrar-servers.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05E80200089; Fri, 13 Dec 2013 19:41:52 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at imap1.ox.registrar-servers.com Received: from oxmail.registrar-servers.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (imap1.ox.registrar-servers.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id srseDwAv-AY1; Fri, 13 Dec 2013 19:41:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.0.13] (unknown [94.13.99.191]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by oxmail.registrar-servers.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9E81A20007F; Fri, 13 Dec 2013 19:41:48 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <52ABA947.4030908@ajf.me> Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2013 00:41:43 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Stefan Neufeind , php-dev References: <52ABA642.9090206@php.net> In-Reply-To: <52ABA642.9090206@php.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Proposal for RFC: get_class_constants() From: ajf@ajf.me (Andrea Faulds) On 14/12/13 00:28, Stefan Neufeind wrote: > > Currently the same behavious is only possible by the help of reflection, > which due to the nature of reflection takes a bit more work/cpu-cycles. > Unless you're doing this a billion times a second, I can't see why the number of cpu cycles for this would matter. And why duplicate functionality needlessly, in that case? What's so bad about the current Reflection way of doing it, except for performance? I can't see this proposal really being that useful or going anywhere. -- Andrea Faulds http://ajf.me/