Hi Ralph,
>
> Thats not true. Autoloaders that are shipped with code should only be
> responsible for loading the code they are responsible for (in the least).
Ok, I can agree with that. But thats were overheads can occur
depending on the implementation of the rest of the spl registered
handlers
Again, why is this a problem, exactly? What if you have another
autoloader registered later that _can_ handle it?
If the first dedicated autoloader for that namespace couldn't handle
it, chances are no other handler will (or should not).
Thats not true. Autoloaders that are shipped with code
Hi Matthew,
>
> Again, why is this a problem, exactly? What if you have another
> autoloader registered later that _can_ handle it?
If the first dedicated autoloader for that namespace couldn't handle
it, chances are no other handler will (or should not).
>
> But spl_autoload _IS_ a stack
I
-- Greg wrote
(on Wednesday, 24 August 2011, 09:29 PM -0500):
> Hi Matthew,
> > > My point, or preference is, is that we should try and encourage only
> > > registering one autoloader handler for the application.
> >
> > Why, exactly? What problem does this solve?
> >
> > This is in fact how the S
