On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 14:31:08 +0800
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alan Knowles) wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-08-08 at 23:08 -0700, Andi Gutmans wrote:
> > You are wrong because __autoload() *is* called and you can load
> > the class on the-fly. The only problem is if the class does not
> > exist in your code base, in which case, your application should
> > blow up!
>
> The basic point is that is_a() provided negative testing of
> non-existant classes
> if (!is_a($obj, "SomeRarelyUsedClass")) { ....
>
> instance_of does not, and can not, at present.
>
> This technique is already frequently used to cope with lazy
> loaded code, which even with cached code compilers, is pretty
> damn efficient in a scripted language (less IO operations, less
> parsing, less memory...)
>
> It is not about the fact we 'can' load the class, but that we dont
> 'want' to load the class.. - it's a waste of resources, memory,
> cpu etc. just for the sake of CS perfection..
>
> Last time I looked PHP was about getting thing done efficiently,
> not about giving your university professor a woody... ;)
That's my point. The autoload magic (crap? :)) is not in cause here.
If you _test_ something, you do not expect the test operator to
abort your execution (fatal error).
Guys, you are just making PHP more compiled-like. It's a bad idea,
in my opinion.
--Pierre
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
