I want to suggest the GO include format
<?php
require
(
'utila.php',
'utilb.php',
'utilc.php',
)
the same from include
or more , without comma
<?php
require
(
'utila.php'
'utilb.php'
'utilc.php'
)
or more, withou .php
<?php
require
(
'utila',
'utilb',
'utilc',
)
the same for other to, like define..
<?php
define
(
'K_TYPE_A' => 'a',
'K_TYPE_B' => 'b'
'K_TYPE_C' => 'c'
)
with or withou comma...
--
Att.
Mathias Grimm
I want to suggest the GO include format
<?php
require
(
'utila.php',
'utilb.php',
'utilc.php',
)the same from include
What's te benefit, other than saving a few chars on the cost of being
more explicit. I don't see any benefit.
Doing this would mean an error to include one of these files would give
an imprecise error message. Given
<?php
require(
$a,
$b
);
?>
fails it will always tell you about an error in line 5 (basically where
the ; is)
<?php
require $a;
require $b;
?>
will give you the precise line.
Other similar issues exist.
or more , without comma
<?php
require
(
'utila.php'
'utilb.php'
'utilc.php'
)
that looks more like a typo than expected code.
or more, withou .php
<?phprequire
(
'utila',
'utilb',
'utilc',
)
that makes no sense. It would have to check for two files, and why
only .php? Why not .inc or .class or whatever people are using?
the same for other to, like define..
<?php
define
(
'K_TYPE_A' => 'a',
'K_TYPE_B' => 'b'
'K_TYPE_C' => 'c'
)with or without comma...
define() is a regular function so we'd have to make it a language
construct (which creates issues) or do some strange things to function
declarations.
Again, I see no benefit (and no, a few characters more are no trouble,
writing code is never the hard part. The hard part is maintenance ...
and a proper IDE serves quite well for saving key strokes ...)
johannes