Re: SPLClassLoader RFC Thoughts And Improvements

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 such. An > example would be implementing an interface for the autoloader which > defines something like load($class). The problem there is that if > function autoloading is added, the interface won't be able to support > it. So it's stuck in a hard place between changing an implemented > interface (which will bork code significantly on update) and adding a > new interface (which would be the lesser of evils, but would just add > to the deprecated cruft). IMO, the interface should just define loadClass($class). It means that spl_autoload_register has a fixed target for loading classes, and if we want to support autoloading functions or whatever else later on, a new interface can be added that would define the appropriate method eg. loadFunction($function). Cheers, David