On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 9:55 AM, Nikita Popov wrote:
>
> A relaxed variant would only invoke the autoloader once for each
> call, assuming that a function that is not loadable at one time will never
> become loadable (which is of course a significant restriction). The former
> variant would be pr
On 18/07/2016 16:04, Michał Brzuchalski wrote:
I was thinking on passing some context information into autoload about
context, eg.: class | funtion. Wouldn't it be satisfiable information
for autoloader?
IMHO it would be the easiest way to satisfy autoloader to find
proprietary implementation.
18 lip 2016 15:58 "Rowan Collins" napisał(a):
>
> On 18/07/2016 01:50, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
>>
>> Hi!
>>
>>> How about an alternative approach where a function inside a namespace
>>> can be autoloaded using the existing callback, by using a reserved
>>> namespace segment? So to autoload funct
On 18/07/2016 01:50, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
Hi!
How about an alternative approach where a function inside a namespace
can be autoloaded using the existing callback, by using a reserved
namespace segment? So to autoload function "foo\bar()", the engine would
construct a string like "__functio
On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 4:53 AM, Nikita Popov wrote:
>
> Option B: foo() in namespace Bar will
> a) Check if Bar\foo() exists
> b) Otherwise check if foo() exists
> c) Otherwise try to load 'Bar\foo'
> d) Otherwise try to load 'foo'
> e) If all fails, throw.
>
> This avoids the autoloading overhe
Hi!
> How about an alternative approach where a function inside a namespace
> can be autoloaded using the existing callback, by using a reserved
> namespace segment? So to autoload function "foo\bar()", the engine would
> construct a string like "__function\foo\bar" or "foo\__function\bar",
> and
>> I think a better option is to try to solve this in 8 by unifying how
>> functions and classes (and interfaces and traits) work in namespaces.
>> Ideally the lookup behavior should be the same and all that differs
>> are the symbol tables being looked in.
>
>
> Are you suggesting that we require
On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 1:28 AM, Levi Morrison wrote:
> > I don't think this is realistic.
>
> I'll come back to this one in a moment.
>
> > As such:
> >
> > Option B: foo() in namespace Bar will
> > a) Check if Bar\foo() exists
> > b) Otherwise check if foo() exists
> > c) Otherwise try to load
> I don't think this is realistic.
I'll come back to this one in a moment.
> As such:
>
> Option B: foo() in namespace Bar will
> a) Check if Bar\foo() exists
> b) Otherwise check if foo() exists
> c) Otherwise try to load 'Bar\foo'
> d) Otherwise try to load 'foo'
> e) If all fails, throw.
>
> T
On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 8:21 PM, Rowan Collins
wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> In the discussion of escaping mechanisms, it's once again come up that
> functions lack autoloading, and thus are hard to work with in larger code
> bases.
>
> Previous solutions to this, most notably Anthony Ferrara's very thoro
10 matches
Mail list logo
