Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:35486 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 47987 invoked by uid 1010); 14 Feb 2008 09:26:45 -0000 Delivered-To: ezmlm-scan-internals@lists.php.net Delivered-To: ezmlm-internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 47972 invoked from network); 14 Feb 2008 09:26:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 14 Feb 2008 09:26:44 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=derick@php.net; spf=unknown; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=derick@php.net; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: unknown (pb1.pair.com: domain php.net does not designate 82.94.239.7 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: derick@php.net X-Host-Fingerprint: 82.94.239.7 mail.jdi-ict.nl Linux 2.6 Received: from [82.94.239.7] ([82.94.239.7:53224] helo=mail.jdi-ict.nl) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 14/90-43552-35904B74 for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2008 04:26:44 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.jdi-ict.nl (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m1E9QbaB012157; Thu, 14 Feb 2008 10:26:38 +0100 Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 10:26:38 +0100 (CET) X-X-Sender: derick@kossu.ez.no To: Markus Fischer cc: Lars Strojny , Jochem Maas , Pierre Joye , PHP Internals List In-Reply-To: <47B407CD.2060709@fischer.name> Message-ID: References: <1202917630.25345.6.camel@localhost> <1202943887.7717.7.camel@localhost> <47B383C1.3030303@iamjochem.com> <1202980076.7717.12.camel@localhost> <47B407CD.2060709@fischer.name> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=UTF-8 Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] prepend_include_path()/append_include_path() From: derick@php.net (Derick Rethans) On Thu, 14 Feb 2008, Markus Fischer wrote: > Lars Strojny wrote: > > Am Donnerstag, den 14.02.2008, 00:56 +0100 schrieb Jochem Maas: > > > I think Lars has a point ... maybe set_include_path() could > > > be given a second parameter instead to mitigate the need for seperate > > > funcs?: > > > > > > set_include_path('foo', INCPATH_OVERRIDE); // default > > > set_include_path('foo', INCPATH_APPEND); > > > set_include_path('foo', INCPATH_PREPEND); > > > > Thanks for your support, but this seems counter intuitive. Why should > > *set*_include_path() be used to *append* or *prepend* to the include > > path? Also learning another mouthful of constants is maybe suboptimal. > > Getting used to prepend_/append_...() is easy from my point of view, as > > the name is derived from what's currently present (set_include_path()). > > Just my "senf" (like 2c, but that's what we call it in Austria :) > > Personally I never understood why we've set_include_path in the first place > anyway. "ini_set('include_path', ..." does exactly the same and the C function > does actually exactly this. I remember why it was added. It was because of PEAR having to set an include path. Stig added this function because many shared hosters (or atleast enough) were disabling ini_set(), and thus you couldn't set a required include path. As to this issue, I don't think we should add two new functions here either. Derick