Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:70636
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain lsces.co.uk from 217.147.176.204 cause and error)
Message-ID: <52AC5E19.8060203@lsces.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2013 13:33:13 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:25.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/25.0 SeaMonkey/2.22
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: internals@lists.php.net
References: <52ABA642.9090206@php.net> <52ABA947.4030908@ajf.me>
In-Reply-To: <52ABA947.4030908@ajf.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Proposal for RFC: get_class_constants()
From: lester@lsces.co.uk (Lester Caine)

Andrea Faulds 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.

If it is the only reason you are having to activate reflections? Reflections 
would seem to have a place, but is it really necessary to add yet another layer 
when most of the time it's function is provided better by IDE tools anyway? This 
is a simple example of a current hole in the core PHP tools which would help a 
section of developers who don't need the overheads of additional layers.

-- 
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-----------------------------
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk