> If not, I don't see why we ever need to be able to autoload global functions
Well, for consistency. For one, if you're refactoring a global function to a namespaced one, this inconsistency is going to be surprising. In general, any inconsistency in a language is surprising. Why only non-global functions can autoload, is going to require a longer explanation. And that's bad. If we support auto-loading only for namespaced functions, we're actively favoring (potentially micro-) performance over consistency. I use global functions. I know that's not popular, but it's a language feature, and I use it - for things like test-frameworks and global view helper-functions. Single namespace spanning multiple files is also a case for me - that's not a decision we should make; likely, a PSR and Composer auto-loading features will drive those decisions. One should have the freedom to add a new function to an existing namespace, and make that function auto-load, while packaging that function as a separate optionally-installable package. I can't see the introduction of arbitrary restrictions or limitations leading to anything good, language-wise. Unless there's a demonstrated, critical performance issue with auto-loading of global functions, please, let's not cripple this feature with inconsistencies from the get-go! On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 6:46 PM, Rowan Collins <rowan.coll...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 08/08/2016 17:00, Levi Morrison wrote: > >> I think saying "add a backslash in front of your function names to >> avoid them being slow" will just lead to lots of "lol wtf php sux". >> >> >> They'll say the same when function and class autoloading don't work the >> same way anyway. I think unifying their behavior over time is the best >> solution forward. Yes, I'm talking about a BC break eventually, but the >> suggestion to autoload only fully qualified function names could buy us >> the time to make that BC break less severe. >> > > > Do you mean eventually changing the name resolution rules for functions to > match those for classes? I wasn't around at the time it was discussed, and > if we were adding them now would be tempted to say the leading \ should > always be mandatory, just like it is for classes. But since we have what we > have, I don't see that big an advantage to changing it. > > If not, I don't see why we ever need to be able to autoload global > functions. "You want autoloading? Put it in a namespace." Like I say, that > leaves the very small edge case of a single namespace spanning multiple > files, and an autoloader implementation able to include one of them when a > function is called from another. > > > Regards, > -- > Rowan Collins > [IMSoP] > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > >
