Hi! > This seems to be the core of your argumentation in this thread: "Why > don't you just use Foo::bar() instead of foo\bar()?" > > In which case, I wonder why we have functions at all. We could just use > static methods instead after all. Maybe we should deprecate function > support?
Maybe we should stop strawman arguments? I never claimed functions should be replaced with static methods or that we should deprecate anything, please don't put words in my mouth. What I claimed is that if you write code in a *specific pattern*, that is the only pattern that makes this proposal useful and that is, as far as I can see, in no way common among people that use functions, then *in this specific case* you could as well use slightly different pattern which would allow you to use existing facilities, and the only difference between the two is the word "class" and using :: instead of \. > On a more serious note: If you want an actual example of how functions > can be easier to use than static methods, consider the "use function" > RFC. Now that it's in, it is possible to directly import a function > foo\bar() and use it with just bar(). Static methods allow no such > thing. You always need to write the class name. Which is a good thing. Making different thing mean the same is not a good idea, it reduces readability. And typing 2 characters less was never a priority. > The reason why people currently resort to using static methods instead > of functions is the fact that there is no autoloading for functions. > With autoloading, functions become a lot easier to use. I don't accept this "resort to" - static functions is not something that one should "resort to", it is a completely valid syntactic construct. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227 -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
