Re: why don't most classes extend PEAR?

Martin, thanks for the reply. After 're-inventing' the php wheel enough times now I love the idea of pear. Please excuse a few more novice questions. Martin Jansen wrote: > The classes, which don't extend PEAR simply don't need the feature set > served by the PEAR base classes. So it would be simply a waste of > execution time to include/require the PEAR class. I guess PEAR is primarily a code repository like CPAN. But the overhead of PEAR.php doesn't seem too high since it only really contains error handling and destructors. Most classes that don't extend PEAR require(PEAR.php) it and use the error handling stuff so I don't see how that would save much in execution time to extend PEAR. Am I missing something? It would be nice if there were some way in which the cvs hierarchy reflected which classes extend PEAR.php and which do not. - greg