my comments are also inline
> > did you read the blogpost? most of your replies were cowered there.
> >
>
> Yes.
you mean you or André?
>
> "If you use lowerCamelCase on the class names or your namespace, it will
> > (/should) be exactly like on disk as well."
> >
>
> So as previously said,
Guilherme,
> The language is problematic, FIG/PSG are just trying to have zillions
> different implementations. Everyone would expect that language to set
> the standards, avoiding millions of weird pieces of code out there.
Actually, I'd argue that what you're saying here is the exact opposite
o
Guilherme,
What's the status regarding the finalised PSR-0 implementation so we
can hand it over to DavidC to finish the C implementation and apply
this to 5.4 branch.
Cheers,
- Paul
On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 5:27 PM, guilhermebla...@gmail.com
wrote:
> Hi Tyra3l,
>
> Comments are inline.
>
> On Fr
Hi Tyra3l,
Comments are inline.
On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 8:35 AM, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 10:33 AM, André Rømcke wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 7:30 PM, Anthony Ferrara
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Paul,
>> >
>> > I wasn't saying whether it should be included or not. I was saying
On Nov 4, 2011, at 7:19 AM, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
> Jonathan,
>
>> The problem with spl_autoload_register() is it isn't clear what the
>> autoloading function is supposed to do if the class if not found.
>
> Then that's a documentation problem. If you throw an exception in
> yours, sure that's
On Sat Oct 22 04:38 AM, Nathan Nobbe wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> With a 5.4 release right around the corner I'd like a moment of your
> time to reconsider this issue [1].
>
> Just curious why it died on the table if several folks saw value in
> it, including Stephan who I gather is the primary archit
Jonathan,
> The problem with spl_autoload_register() is it isn't clear what the
> autoloading function is supposed to do if the class if not found.
Then that's a documentation problem. If you throw an exception in
yours, sure that's going to cause problems for anyone else. It's 100%
possible (a
On Thu Nov 3 03:06 PM, Will Fitch wrote:
> Wouldn't you consider spl_autoload_register an interoperability
> solution? Only your defined autoloading function would then need to
> know how your file system is structured, there'd be no need for
> include_path declarations and you wouldn't have to
On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 10:33 AM, André Rømcke wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 7:30 PM, Anthony Ferrara
> wrote:
>
> > Paul,
> >
> > I wasn't saying whether it should be included or not. I was saying
> > that performance should not be a justification for it being included.
> > It may be a benefi
On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 7:30 PM, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
> Paul,
>
> I wasn't saying whether it should be included or not. I was saying
> that performance should not be a justification for it being included.
> It may be a benefit, but it's a very small side benefit as opposed to
> a primary one.
>
10 matches
Mail list logo
