Re: [RFC] New core autoloading mechanism with support for function autoloading

On Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 10:01 AM Ondřej Mirtes <ondrej@mirtes.cz> wrote: > I don’t like the proposed function names: > > autoload_register_class to me reads like “register this class for > autoloading”. If I observe the intended meaning correctly, it should be > called “register_class_autoloader”. > > Same for autoload_register_function - better name would be > “register_function_autoloader”. > > Other functions should be renamed accordingly. Function names should read > like a sentence, like a command. > > On Mon 10. 4. 2023 at 14:17, G. P. B. <george.banyard@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hello Internals, > > > > Dan and I would like to propose a new core autoloading mechanism that > fixes > > some minor design issues with the current class autoloading mechanism and > > introduce a brand-new function autoloading mechanism: > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/core-autoloading > > > > The existing SPL autoloading functions would become aliases to the new > Core > > ones and will continue to work without any migrations needing to be > > performed. > > > > Hope to hear your opinions about this! > > > > Best regards, > > > > George P. Banyard > > > -- > > Ondřej Mirtes > I'm guessing autoload_* was chosen because PHP internal functions are bundled by prefix and register_* would not make a good bundle name for the autoloading functionality. What helps me when thinking about PHP internals function is to assume the first word is a class, such as: $autoload = new Autoload(); And then everything after the first underscore is a method name, such as $autoload->register_class();. What I can recommend in this case is to make them autoload_register_class_loader() and autload_unregister_class_loader(), but prefixing everything with register_* would be essentially $register = new Register();, but register what? -- Marco Deleu