Quoting Marko Friedemann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Well, yes. This IS how it works. The question is wether it is actually > SUPPOSED to be that way and wether there is any security or whatever > other reason for it to be so. > I did say that I consider this a flaw, because it is not what you > usually want to do. >
Yes, it is supposed to work that way. Currently the context of includes does in no way override the context of the base executing script. This is supposed to be that way. I have never wanted to relatively change the include path to the context of an included include, and I am not convinced that this is what one usually wants to do, but I do understand the point you are making. The fact is that when things have been working the way they have been for 5 years, there needs to be a compelling reason to change things. Regards, Josh --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
