Hi Michiel!
> One thing to keep in mind is that this one doesn't take eval() vs regular
> include execution time into account, in case you were still considering
> using it. According to this page, it's many times
I was still considering it... I mean, I am still exploring all my
options for the s
On 18 April 2010 21:43, Micky Hulse wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 10:23 AM, Michiel Sikma
> wrote:
> > I would prefer to use include() since it runs the code in the same
> context,
> > ..
> > with your data rather than printing it right away.
>
> Thanks for the reply Michiel, I really app
On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 10:23 AM, Michiel Sikma wrote:
> I would prefer to use include() since it runs the code in the same context,
> ..
> with your data rather than printing it right away.
Thanks for the reply Michiel, I really appreciate it. :)
For some benchmarks on the different types o
On 18 April 2010 02:08, Micky Hulse wrote:
> Hi Michiel! Thanks for the help, I really appreciate it. :)
>
> > It depends. What's exactly do you want to prevent? It doesn't seem like a
> > ..
> > include, say, additional HTML content, use file_get_contents() instead.
>
> Very good points. My
Hi Michiel! Thanks for the help, I really appreciate it. :)
> It depends. What's exactly do you want to prevent? It doesn't seem like a
> ..
> include, say, additional HTML content, use file_get_contents() instead.
Very good points. My goal was to write a plugin that would allow me to
include
On 16 April 2010 06:57, Micky Hulse wrote:
> Hi,
>
> -snip-
>
> The above code snippet is used in a class which would allow developers
> (of a specific CMS) to include files without having to put php include
> tags on the template view.
>
> The include path will be using the server root path, and
6 matches
Mail list logo
