Re: Why change require_once? A brief explanation of motives

Alexey Borzov wrote:

Hi, Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:

another example would be preventing fatal errors by creating classes on the fly.

You mean, the same fatal errors that are *introduced* by using autoload? That's a huge improvement, indeed!

Err, a require_once that fails to load the code is also fatal .. calling a class thats missing will lead to a fatal error .. unless you use autoload, which gives you the _option_ to write the class on the fly, catch the exception, send an sms to the admin and give a nice error message to the user. sounds like a feature to me. regards, Lukas