Re: Why change require_once? A brief explanation of motives
| From: | Alexey Borzov | Date: | Tue, 17 Jul 2007 15:59:01 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: Why change require_once? A brief explanation of motives | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 | Groups: | php.pear.dev |
| Request: | Send a blank email to pear-dev+get-47576@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
Hi,
Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
No that's what you are implying when praising the virtues of autoload.There is, to put it mildly, a subtle difference between setting an include_path *once* when installing PEAR and mangling usage examples and unit tests on each package installation to make them work.Yeah, I guess there is on the end users side. Are you implying that one would need to add the __autoload() code to every example?
I doubt that all our examples always list all details required. Atleast I never did that and do not think it makes sense.Don't follow you here.
Well, except for the the fact that AllTests.php won't know where to find those classes, nothing.And if you don't see an issue with unit tests then you probably do something wrong with them. Those for HTML_QuickForm2 run out of the box by just executing AllTests.php with php-cli.And what stops AllTests.php to setup the class loading?