> I think it is an unnecessary complication. Classes fit autoloader > paradigm nicely, since the usual pattern is one class per one file > (actually recommended in PSR), so it is easy to establish one-to-one > automatic mapping between classes and files (also recommended in the > PSR). But for functions nobody does this. This means that to implement > function autoloader one will need to have a complicated and fragile > logic (since there's no way to ensure this logic would be in sync with > actual content of files containing multiple functions). > > I disagree on the basis that namespaced functions/constants *do* fit the same autoloading paradigm.
Moreover, since this replaces a simple hash lookup with additional two > function calls (and also other operations included in those) everywhere > in the engine, it will also have performance impact of one of the most > frequently used operations in the engine - function calls - while > providing absolutely no benefit for 100% of existing code and 99.99% of > future code. > > Those function calls would only kick in if the function/constant wasn't already defined, which will be the exception case, so perf isn't a strong argument. > Putting autoloading of different entities into one function makes very > little sense to me - why would the same code load both classes and > functions? How would it do that besides ugly switch that just stuffs two > completely different logic pieces into one function for no reason? The > example given in the RFC is certainly not what anybody would actually > want their autoloaders to do, so I fail to see any case for doing it and > for putting loading more than one entity into one function (that given > that autoloading function would be desirable at all, which it still > doesn't seem so for me). > > That I agree with 100%. -Sara
