Re: Why change require_once? A brief explanation of motives

Pádraic Brady schrieb: > The post you just made is something that could have been made right at the very start - > clearing up any obvious misunderstandings we've circled the past week or so. May I suggest that > the RFC, when updated, clearly note the critical "why?" of each proposed change and > elaborate on how the alternative will have dire consequences? Also for any terms not in common > usage, provide a clear definition. In my opinion (as the n00b!) this would avoid a lot of the > questioning, misunderstandings, and, yes, FUD, this thread has seen. It would also lower resistance > to changes, once people have sufficient facts to hand to make an informed opinion. not only 'why' but also pros and cons removing unnecessary repeatings of pros and cons in the discussion -- Sebastian Mendel www.sebastianmendel.de