Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:97910
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain mindplay.dk from 209.85.220.176 cause and error)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <b15fe9f4-0425-380d-b9a7-c769ec8e50dd@gmail.com>
References: <CADqTB_gfRW6orcm8QXYSTz7iq=1ofv0RVf36=JsLeS7_6-R3LA@mail.gmail.com>
 <b15fe9f4-0425-380d-b9a7-c769ec8e50dd@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2017 09:14:39 +0100
Message-ID: <CADqTB_j7rr7QhyfncLg2anMjaTBJaFaM-oUj7Hq51XH+0skHdg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Stanislav Malyshev <smalyshev@gmail.com>
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1149389c9edfda0546965b13
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Not autoloading functions
From: rasmus@mindplay.dk (Rasmus Schultz)

--001a1149389c9edfda0546965b13
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

> How hard is it to write Foo::bar? You never have to go more
than one level. I don't see a point in mixing internal function
namespace with class methods for the sake of saving typing couple of
characters.

I'm not suggesting we mix namespaces - this of course would be file-local,
same as use-statements in general.

You likely have to write a use-statement either way, if you're going to
call a static function, e.g.:

use Foo\Bar\HtmlHelper;
echo HtmlHelper::escape($text);

Versus:

use Foo\Bar\HtmlHelper::escape;
echo escape($text);

It's not about "saving characters", that's not what use-statements are for
- it's to avoid qualifying the same references repeatedly, which (for one)
is better for source-control, whether that's a namespace or a class-name
being repeated.

Anyhow, it sounds like most of you are positive about this idea, so I will
ponder the details and post a small RFC :-)


On Jan 20, 2017 19:55, "Stanislav Malyshev" <smalyshev@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi!

> Since the autoloading functions proposal is stalled, how about allowing
for
> import of static functions instead?
>
>     use function Foo::bar;
>
>     bar(); // calls Foo::bar()

I'm not sure why it is good. This would certainly be confusing, if you
call strlen and turns out it's completely different function from what
you thought. One thing when it's the same namespace, at least you can be
aware what this package does, but if it's just an arbitrary function
from anywhere, it's really bad for understanding the code.

How hard is it to write Foo::bar? You never have to go more
than one level. I don't see a point in mixing internal function
namespace with class methods for the sake of saving typing couple of
characters.

--
Stas Malyshev
smalyshev@gmail.com

--001a1149389c9edfda0546965b13--