On Fri, Dec 31, 2004 at 01:32:04PM -0800, Josh Chamas wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >Hi, > > > >Nested includes don't work as you would expect (well, at least they > >don't work as *I* expected :). Given files > > > >/PATH/A > >/PATH/DIR/B > >/PATH/DIR/C > > > > I believe your goal really is to really refactor includes elsewhere,
No, that's not my goal, that's a way of avoiding the problem. I'm happy with my directory structure. I'm aware of the available workarounds and my post even included one. The problem is the "action-at-a-distance" when using nested includes, in which includes behave differently depending on where they're called from. > I think really refactoring of these includes should put them into a path > not browsable from the web, so should be ideally outside your main script > area, not under it. This doesn't work for me as I don't have this clear distinction between "includes" and "top-level pages browseable from the web". -- _ivan Open-source billing, ticketing and provisioning for ISPs, VoIP providers and online businesses http://www.sisd.com/freeside/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
