> > Just a quick idea - what if requiring that autoloaders behave
> > deterministically, that is, once a certain autoloader
> > implementation
> > has been given the possibility to find a class it will
> > never be asked
> > again (because it wouldn't find it later on either).
>
> I'm not s
Just a quick idea - what if requiring that autoloaders behave
deterministically, that is, once a certain autoloader implementation
has been given the possibility to find a class it will never be asked
again (because it wouldn't find it later on either).
I'm not sure if it's a correct assumption
> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> Von: Stanislav Malyshev [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> If the class for which autoloaded request is issued *exists*.
> However, we are discussing the case where this class *does
> not exist*, so it can not be loaded. Thus, autoload request
> will be repeat
Matthias Pigulla wrote:
>> Von: Stanislav Malyshev [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>> But you could achiever the same just by avoiding naming classes the
>> same as internal classes, you surely know which classes are in your
>> own namespace?
> ...
>> Not using names of classes same as internal classe
> Von: Stanislav Malyshev [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> But you could achiever
> the same just by avoiding naming classes the same as internal classes,
> you surely know which classes are in your own namespace?
...
> Not using names of classes same as internal classes is not a big deal
> either - a
> Von: David Zülke [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> The problem I see with that is that if I have an application that uses
> a 3rd-party library which does not use namespaces, I need to
> use ::LibClass everywhere. Until they switch to namespaces - then I
> need to touch hundreds and thousands lines of
