Hi! > As far as complicated and fragile logic, as Nikita pointed out, you > could put all of your functions inside of a "functions,php" in a
It's the same as making it Functions.php and a class. I don't see why we should overhaul the autoloading in the engine and add so many complexity just to avoid writing the word "class". > Or, alternatively, you can keep a mapping of function->filename. There's > no need or requirement for one-class, one-function or one-constant. One-class-per-file is a very frequent usage pattern. One-function-per-file never happens. That's the difference. > Furthermore, I think that's up to the community to decide how to do. > They mostly settled on a 1-class-to-1-file rule (which was not the case > prior to __autoload/spl_autoload). I am fully confident that they will > find a way that makes sense, if given the ability. This sounds like a solution in search of a problem. I don't think we should create solutions for problems that do not exist and then tell people "now go find some problem that may fit this neat code that I've added to the engine". We should first identify the need and only then mess with the engine, not the other way around. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227 -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
