Anthony Ferrara wrote:
Since you asked me for feedback on how I would suggest improving the
RFC, so here it goes...
Silly question time ...
If I am reading all this correctly we are talking about how something is found
if I have not directly identified that I want to use it?
So if my base fr
David
Sorry, I just RE read your reply. that's basically what you said, so in
essence I agree...
Anthony
On Nov 10, 2011 6:29 PM, "Anthony Ferrara" wrote:
> Well, the problem with adding methods later is that it will fatal any
> class that implements the old one. A big no no.
>
> You could g
Well, the problem with adding methods later is that it will fatal any class
that implements the old one. A big no no.
You could get around that by doing something like traversable. Provide an
empty and non usable core SplAutoloader interface which is typehintable.
Then add a child SplClassAutolo
Surprised to say that I agree on just about everything you mentioned. I
would however love to see a useful autoloader included in core. I have
only one comment below.
> 4. The RFC should avoid implementing any pattern or style that may
> make future feature addition difficult or pose risks towards
