[FX.php List] Another Request for FX.php (version 4.0) feedback

[DC]

Hello,

Can someone please explain to me the benefits of using CONSTANTS as 
parameters? I can only see the pitfalls.

It seems to me that it just puts a whole layer onto what was a set of 
simple functions. It also obscures the parameter type. It's also a bunch 
of new stuff to unlearn.learn without any payoff.

Isn't it a better overall architecture to have a few apropriately named 
functions than to have a layer of CONSTANTS that need to be passed as 
parameters?

By "simplifying" you've actually added one more function! Meaning, I 
still have to remember the CONSTANTS and now I have to remember the 
generic function name and the proper set of constants and whether they 
need to be passed, etc... etc...

Please help me see the light. Why is this method of defining an API 
being pursued with FX.php?

> * You'll note that now there's no need to remember multiple action 
> functions.  Each action constant should be logical to remember: FX_OPEN, 
> FX_CLOSE, FX_DELETE, FX_DUPLICATE, FX_EDIT, etc.  No abbreviations.  Easy?