2012/11/5 Peter Cowburn <sala...@php.net> > Pushing to internals list. > > On 5 November 2012 20:41, Levi Morrison <morrison.l...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I hear people complaining about this out in user-land all the time, but > > I've never seen anyone from internals respond. With practically everyone > > using an autoloader these days, it really borks your workflow to use > > `require_once` just to load a function. > > > > So why don't we call `spl_autoload` for undefined functions? Are there > > technical reasons, or has this not been discussed? > > IIRC correctly, one strong point for autoloading classes catching on > was because of the existing one-class-per-file practice; folks were > already having files named after a class and only containing said > class. The same never really caught on for individual functions. >
Thats not really an argument, because once the autoloader find a undfined function, a custom loader is called anyway and this one can include a file with multiple functions (or classes, or constants, ...). (As a side note: The current autoloader could include files with multiple classes too ;)) I've asked this question for a while (one, or two years ago or so). Must say, that I didn't remember the answer, but I would like to see autoloading for namespace-constants and functions too :) Regards, Sebastian > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > -- github.com/KingCrunch
