# include() - partial includes?

- Thread: https://externals.io/message/2072
- Original archive: https://news-web.php.net/php.internals/2072
- Started by George Whiffen on 2003-05-28T23:04:58+00:00
- Messages: 2
- Reply by email to internals@lists.php.net
- More for agents: search with https://externals.io/search.md?q={query} · JSON API at https://externals.io/api · documentation at https://externals.io/llms.txt

---

## #2073 — Wez Furlong — 2003-05-28T21:56:26+00:00

URL: https://externals.io/message/2072#2073 · In reply to: #2072

Just use your own little script for this kind of thing; it doesn't
belong in the core of the language.

--Wez.



> Apologies in advance if internals is not for feature requests.
>
>
> include() and require() pick up the whole file.  Could we have the
> option to include just part of the file?
>
>
> Proposed new syntax for include(), require():
>
> include ( string filename [, string start_tag [, string end_tag]])
>
> If the optional start_tag is specified, the file is only read from
> immediately after the first occurrence of the start_tag string in the
> file.  If the optional end_tag is also specified, reading of the file
> stops with the last character before the end_tag.
>
> Example:
>
> include('layout.html',"<!-- section header -->\n","\n<!-- section");
>
> with layout.html as follows:
>
>   <!-- section header -->
>   <html>
>   <head>
>   </head>
>   <body>
>   <img src="banner.gif">
>   <h1> Some standard title</h1>
>   <table width="700">
>   <tr>
>   <td>
>   <!-- section middle -->
>   Some php output
>   <!-- section footer -->
>   </td>
>   </tr>
>   </table>
>   <h2>Complaints to <A HREF="<?= $email?>" me</A><h2>
>   </body>
>   </html>
>
> would include only the header section, i.e.:
>
>   <html>
>   <head>
>   </head>
>   <body>
>   <img src="banner.gif">
>   <h1> Some standard title</h1>
>   <table width="700">
>   <tr>
>   <td>
>
> Purpose:
> At least for me, it is very common for at least the header and footer of
> every page to be prepared and maintained by an html developer as part of
> a "standard" layout.  Individual php generated html pages "include" the
> header, then write their own output and finally "include" the footer.
>
> With the current include()/require(), the header and footer MUST be
> stored in individual files.  They have to be "cut out" of the standard
> layout design page and stored in separate files e.g. header.txt and
> footer.txt.  From then on, the html developer has to maintain them
> individually without the benefit of viewing them together in the layout
> page via their html editor.
>
> With partial includes available, the layout page could be used directly
> to provide the header, footer, navigation and any other standard
> includes while still being easily maintainable and viewable as a whole
> by non-php html developers using standard html editors.
>
> I believe this is a common scenario where partial includes would save
> time and significantly improve maintainability.  There are plenty of
> other possible uses.  It could just as well be mail text, xml, or plain
> old php code that you might prefer to handle in sections of one file
> rather than being forced into placing each section in a separate include
> files.
>
> Implementation:
> With the proposed syntax, implementation shouldn't be too bad.  It's
> really just an extra couple of string scans i.e. the php equivalent
> would be something like:
>
> $code = get_file_contents($filename);
> $startpos = strpos($code,$start_tag);
> if ($startpos)
> {
>     $startpos = $startpos + strlen($start_tag);
>     $endpos = strpos($code,$end_tag,$startpos);
>     if ($endpos)
>     {
>        $code = substr($code,$startpos,$endpos - $startpos);
>     } else {
>        $code = substr($code,$startpos);
>     }
> }
> eval('?>'.$code.'<?');
>
> There is no need for regex or tokenizing, and it's the user's
> responsibility to decide if they want to keep or lose trailing/starting
> new lines, enclosing comment tags etc.
>
> The trickiest question is where/when to do the scans to pick out the
> appropriate section of the file.  The most obvious candidate is probably
> Zend/zend_language_scanner.c:zend_read_file(). This seems to be where an
> include file is actually read.  Unfortunately it's pretty deep into the
> code and I don't suppose anyone would want to change it without at least
> having Zeev/Andi/Whoever's go-ahead.
>
> As to performance, my guess is it would be significantly faster than an
> include of two separate files: after the first include there's a
> fighting chance of finding the include file still in O/S file/disk cache
> for second and subsequent accesses.
>
>
> What do you all think?
>
> George.

---

## #2072 — George Whiffen — 2003-05-28T23:04:58+00:00

URL: https://externals.io/message/2072#2072

Apologies in advance if internals is not for feature requests.


include() and require() pick up the whole file.  Could we have the 
option to include just part of the file?


Proposed new syntax for include(), require():

include ( string filename [, string start_tag [, string end_tag]])

If the optional start_tag is specified, the file is only read from 
immediately after the first occurrence of the start_tag string in the 
file.  If the optional end_tag is also specified, reading of the file 
stops with the last character before the end_tag.

Example:

include('layout.html',"<!-- section header -->\n","\n<!-- section");

with layout.html as follows:

  <!-- section header -->
  <html>
  <head>
  </head>
  <body>
  <img src="banner.gif">
  <h1> Some standard title</h1>
  <table width="700">
  <tr>
  <td>
  <!-- section middle -->
  Some php output
  <!-- section footer -->
  </td>
  </tr>
  </table>
  <h2>Complaints to <A HREF="<?= $email?>" me</A><h2>
  </body>
  </html>

would include only the header section, i.e.:

  <html>
  <head>
  </head>
  <body>
  <img src="banner.gif">
  <h1> Some standard title</h1>
  <table width="700">
  <tr>
  <td>

Purpose:
At least for me, it is very common for at least the header and footer of 
every page to be prepared and maintained by an html developer as part of 
a "standard" layout.  Individual php generated html pages "include" the 
header, then write their own output and finally "include" the footer.

With the current include()/require(), the header and footer MUST be 
stored in individual files.  They have to be "cut out" of the standard 
layout design page and stored in separate files e.g. header.txt and 
footer.txt.  From then on, the html developer has to maintain them 
individually without the benefit of viewing them together in the layout 
page via their html editor.

With partial includes available, the layout page could be used directly 
to provide the header, footer, navigation and any other standard 
includes while still being easily maintainable and viewable as a whole 
by non-php html developers using standard html editors.

I believe this is a common scenario where partial includes would save 
time and significantly improve maintainability.  There are plenty of 
other possible uses.  It could just as well be mail text, xml, or plain 
old php code that you might prefer to handle in sections of one file 
rather than being forced into placing each section in a separate include 
files.

Implementation:
With the proposed syntax, implementation shouldn't be too bad.  It's 
really just an extra couple of string scans i.e. the php equivalent 
would be something like:

$code = get_file_contents($filename);
$startpos = strpos($code,$start_tag);
if ($startpos)
{
    $startpos = $startpos + strlen($start_tag);
    $endpos = strpos($code,$end_tag,$startpos);
    if ($endpos)
    {
       $code = substr($code,$startpos,$endpos - $startpos);
    } else {
       $code = substr($code,$startpos);
    }
}
eval('?>'.$code.'<?');

There is no need for regex or tokenizing, and it's the user's 
responsibility to decide if they want to keep or lose trailing/starting 
new lines, enclosing comment tags etc.

The trickiest question is where/when to do the scans to pick out the 
appropriate section of the file.  The most obvious candidate is probably 
Zend/zend_language_scanner.c:zend_read_file(). This seems to be where an 
include file is actually read.  Unfortunately it's pretty deep into the 
code and I don't suppose anyone would want to change it without at least 
having Zeev/Andi/Whoever's go-ahead.

As to performance, my guess is it would be significantly faster than an 
include of two separate files: after the first include there's a 
fighting chance of finding the include file still in O/S file/disk cache 
for second and subsequent accesses.


What do you all think?

George.