On 10 September 2024 18:59:11 BST, Rob Landers <rob@bottled.codes> wrote:
>From the beginning, I have stated that I don't see these two RFCs as competing
>or mutually exclusive.
> ...
> If this RFC succeeds, it will simplify the design of core autoloading,
> allowing us to focus expressly on the API, which I believe would improve its
> chances of success.
If your RFC didn't change the autoloading API at all, and concentrated on
details of behaviour that weren't covered by Dan and Gina's existing draft, I
could see how this might make sense.
But from what I can see, your RFC is almost entirely about the API, and doesn't
even explain the behaviour it is proposing very clearly (I'm still not clear
what "the function autoloader will be called only once for the current
namespace" means, exactly).
Even if there weren't a separate RFC, I would urge you not to put the current
text to a vote, because the issues which have been forefront in previous
discussions are barely addressed at all.
> there's no rush, but there's also no reason to delay
The reason to delay is that we're still discussing alternatives; the aim of the
vote is to confirm that a conclusion and a consensus has been reached.
Regards,
Rowan Tommins
[IMSoP]
