Re: Why change require_once? A brief explanation of motives

Alexey Borzov wrote:

Hi, Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:

Alexey, I think you fail to understand that its not a black and white world. Its not about "the RFC sucks" or if you "believe" me or Greg. Its about finding a solution. Labeling things "idiocy" or whatever serves no purpose to this list. It might give you personal gratification.

Lukas, I think you fail to understand that people requiring changes have to provide the arguments, not those who wish to keep the status quo. People who are proposing the changes in question made a spectacularly bad job of presenting their arguments, since the RFC in question was published with no reasoning whatsoever. Is that the way PEAR is going to work now with "constitutions", "presidents" and "groups" above and unwashed masses below?

No, I do acknowledge the fact that there must be valid reasons for changing the status quo. I also see that the original proposal did not do a good job of presenting why to change and provide examples of all the use cases that need to be addressed. Does that mean that anything that is brought up in relation to this or clarifications now also suck? This is what I mean with its not black or white.

The usage examples and unit tests need to load the package classes, you know, as well as dependencies. How are they going to find them?

All packages in PEAR will be able to work with a single __autoload() implementation. So I do not see the issue. regards, Lukas