Hi, Paul I personally pretty much like the idea of auto-loaders, but that's a personal point of view. If you have always develop with scripts having autoloaders you'll hate to write a *require_once* command at the beginning of all files. And what would a dependency-injection-container be without an autoloader ;) http://www.slideshare.net/fabpot/dependency-injection-with-php-53 If you write your code in OOP you should always have unique class-names. If you follow this and use a good naming-convention both ways should be usable. I prefer to use autoloaders, you maybe not and that makes code so personalized ;) *like-it* Bye Simon 2012/2/13 Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 11:36 PM, Paul M Foster <paulf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > > The more I've thought about it since then, the more I've considered it a > > Good Thing(tm). It makes troubleshooting existing code a whole lot > > easier. I don't have to wonder what the autoloader is doing or where the > > files are, on which the current file depends. It sort of obviates the > > autoloader stuff, but I'd rather do that than spend hours trying to > > track down which file in which directory contains the class which paints > > the screen blue or whatever. > > Yeah, this is the sort of problem better handled by a tool than > switching away from autoloaders. > > Exuberant Ctags is your friend. > > -- > Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis > > -- > PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > >
