2013/8/31 Vartolomei Nicolae <nvartolo...@gmail.com> > So you say you will create a file for every function you want to support > autoloading? >
I already _have_ create files for functions of a namespace... Closed source. > As I already asked, tell us about realworld use case, for example where > this could improve say big projects like Symfony or ZF. > Not everything can be found in the 5 most popular frameworks. > There is no logic to add this functionality just because we can. > The lack of logic is: Why is it actually missing? - Classes: Triggers an autoloader - Functions: Needs manual handling - Constants: Needs manual handling That is at first inconsistent. The need of "require_once"s is inefficient and error prone. Regards, Sebastian > > > > kindly, > nvartolomei > > > On Friday, August 30, 2013 at 8:38 PM, Nikita Popov wrote: > > > On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 7:10 PM, Stas Malyshev > > <smalys...@sugarcrm.com(mailto: > smalys...@sugarcrm.com)>wrote: > > > > > Hi! > > > > > > > Well, static methods aren't the same as functions. > > > > > > The big difference being? > > > > 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? > > > > 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. > > > > 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. > > > > Nikita > > > -- github.com/KingCrunch
