On 10 September 2024 18:59:11 BST, Rob Landers <[email protected]> wrote:
>From the beginning, I have stated that I don't see these two RFCs as competing or mutually
>exclusive.
> ...
> If this RFC succeeds, it will simplify the design of core autoloading, allowing us to focus
> expressly on the API, which I believe would improve its chances of success.
If your RFC didn't change the autoloading API at all, and concentrated on details of behaviour
that weren't covered by Dan and Gina's existing draft, I could see how this might make
sense.
But from what I can see, your RFC is almost entirely about the API, and doesn't even explain
the behaviour it is proposing very clearly (I'm still not clear what "the function
autoloader will be called only once for the current namespace" means, exactly).
Even if there weren't a separate RFC, I would urge you not to put the current text to a vote,
because the issues which have been forefront in previous discussions are barely addressed at all.
> there's no rush, but there's also no reason to delay
The reason to delay is that we're still discussing alternatives; the aim of the vote is to
confirm that a conclusion and a consensus has been reached.
Regards,
Rowan Tommins
[IMSoP]