"Marcus Boerger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Please don't add new ini settings here, living with include_path should be > enough, wouldn't it? >
Do we want the import behavior to apply to the existing include path? To me, it seems nice to have the include_path and class_path separate. The class_path will only be used for classes, and include_path for everything else (header/footer code, etc.). Of course, this is just my opinion. What does everyone else think? > Why can't __autoload decide itself? I mean either it knows it received a > namespace class since the string contains a ':' or the function writer > has to find out himself. > Well, when a full namespace import is done, the string will not contain a ':'. __autoload would only receive a class name, and there is no easy way for __autoload to know which namespace contains that class. That's why a separate mechanism is needed from __autoload, that will look into the class_path directories (appending the directories for the namespace name) for the class file, and if/when found, include that. This is one other reason why a separate class_path variable would be useful: the include_path might have several directories, and all these would need to be searched, even though these directories might not have classes at all. In contrast, the directories in class_path are specifically for class files, so the searches are faster. -- Jessie -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
