On Mon, 4 Apr 2005, Derick Rethans wrote:
> > FWIW, I don't think maintaining BC is super important here. I don't
> > believe lots of people are using __autoload() currently, and it should
> > be pretty trivial to migrate to whatever solution we end up with.
>
> BC is always important.
I didn't s
Alan Knowles wrote:
I dont know if you read the blog comments here:
http://www.akbkhome.com/blog.php/View/79/require_once+is+part+of+your
+documentation..html
and here
http://www.akbkhome.com/blog.php/View/77/is+__autoload+evil%3F.html
and slightly related
http://www.akbkhome.com/blog.php/View/76/r
On Sun, 3 Apr 2005, Adam Maccabee Trachtenberg wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Apr 2005, Andi Gutmans wrote:
>
> > I don't think the right solution though is to leave the not-optimal
> > solution in the engine, and create a solution outside the engine. I think
> > we should find a way to tune the engine so th
On Sun, 3 Apr 2005, Andi Gutmans wrote:
> I don't think the right solution though is to leave the not-optimal
> solution in the engine, and create a solution outside the engine. I think
> we should find a way to tune the engine so that it works well. Zeev's
> suggestion keeps BC. If there are conc
Hello Zeev,
Sunday, April 3, 2005, 10:39:39 AM, you wrote:
> At 18:31 03/04/2005, Marcus Boerger wrote:
>>Right from the beginning i said __autoload() is just wrong and we need the
>>described behavior. However all i got back is that i am just wrong and we
>>don't need it. And that from everybody
At 11:31 AM 4/3/2005 -0400, Marcus Boerger wrote:
I did not try to get it fixed i just fixed it (dot).
Right from the beginning i said __autoload() is just wrong and we need the
described behavior. However all i got back is that i am just wrong and we
don't need it. And that from everybody. But sin
Alan,
Your blog entry is actually what made me look into that topic. I'm not
sure whether I agree with you regarding the general necessity of
__autoload(). __autoload() is not only about saving the headache of
explicit require()'s, it's also about 'JITing' this task, so that no
classes are lo
At 18:31 03/04/2005, Marcus Boerger wrote:
Right from the beginning i said __autoload() is just wrong and we need the
described behavior. However all i got back is that i am just wrong and we
don't need it. And that from everybody. But since SPL already gives all
you mentioned there is no reason to
Hello Zeev,
Sunday, April 3, 2005, 6:05:22 AM, you wrote:
> All,
> One problem that became apparent after the introduction of __autoload(), is
> that different pieces of code, sometimes coming from different sources, may
> want to declare this function in a different way. Today, __autoload() is
On Apr 3, 2005, at 6:05 AM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
What I'd like to suggest is a change in the behavior of __autoload(),
so that multiple __autoload()'s could be defined. Essentially,
declaring __autoload() would in fact add the function to the list of
functions that are called in case a missing c
I dont know if you read the blog comments here:
http://www.akbkhome.com/blog.php/View/79/require_once+is+part+of+your
+documentation..html
and here
http://www.akbkhome.com/blog.php/View/77/is+__autoload+evil%3F.html
and slightly related
http://www.akbkhome.com/blog.php/View/76/require_once%2C+one
Zeev Suraski wrote:
At 15:18 03/04/2005, Andrey Hristov wrote:
Hi Zeev,
the idea one __autoload() may not be capable of loading therefore the
next
one in the chain should be executed to try to load/define the needed
code.
bool(false) returned from __autoload() means try with the next in the
cha
At 15:18 03/04/2005, Andrey Hristov wrote:
Hi Zeev,
the idea one __autoload() may not be capable of loading therefore the next
one in the chain should be executed to try to load/define the needed code.
bool(false) returned from __autoload() means try with the next in the chain,
bool(true) everythi
Zeev Suraski wrote:
All,
One problem that became apparent after the introduction of __autoload(),
is that different pieces of code, sometimes coming from different
sources, may want to declare this function in a different way. Today,
__autoload() is treated like any other function, so it's impo
At 14:21 03/04/2005, Andrey Hristov wrote:
Zeev Suraski wrote:
All,
One problem that became apparent after the introduction of __autoload(),
is that different pieces of code, sometimes coming from different
sources, may want to declare this function in a different way. Today,
__autoload() is tr
Zeev Suraski wrote:
All,
One problem that became apparent after the introduction of __autoload(),
is that different pieces of code, sometimes coming from different
sources, may want to declare this function in a different way. Today,
__autoload() is treated like any other function, so it's impo
All,
One problem that became apparent after the introduction of __autoload(), is
that different pieces of code, sometimes coming from different sources, may
want to declare this function in a different way. Today, __autoload() is
treated like any other function, so it's impossible to re-declare
17 matches
Mail list logo
