Namespace and autoloader Re: [PHP-DEV] Questioning the future of PHP
Would that be so hard to distinguish in the parser? If it is, I'd be grateful to know why.
We already have it in now. Changing it for cosmetics would break existing code, and I have not yet understood for what benefit?
Touching back on what I mentioned earlier about PHP not having an inherent way to load files, and in daily use it's somewhat arbitrary. I share the philosophy that the programmer should tell the code what to do, and not the other way around; however, I think some enforced structure can be good. This is something of a wet dream of mine and one I highly doubt will come true, but to get rid of __autoload (or at least supplant it with a default loader) would be a dream. I think it's something that PHP needs, to complete some one of advances its made in recent years.
PHP's autoloader works on classes. Purely functional code should not have a problem with an include hierarchy, whereas OO-code can either use the default autoloader or use a userland version (I use Horde_Autoloader, but it's not the first and not the only implementation which allows class naming beyond PSR-0 standards.
--
Ralf Lang
Linux Consultant / Developer
Tel.: +49-170-6381563
Mail: lang@b1-systems.de
B1 Systems GmbH
Osterfeldstraße 7 / 85088 Vohburg / http://www.b1-systems.de
GF: Ralph Dehner / Unternehmenssitz: Vohburg / AG: Ingolstadt,HRB 3537
Thread (5 messages)