Hello Piotr, Friday, July 22, 2005, 8:41:28 PM, you wrote:
> On Friday 22 of July 2005 19:56, Johannes Schlueter wrote: >> A build with spl statically compiled in is for me just a few k bigger than >> a build without spl. But building spl shared wouldn't work well for two >> reasons: It deals with quite engine-near stuff (like overriding the [] >> syntax or __autoload()) and other extensions behave different depending on >> wether it was compiled in or not (for example MySQLi's MysqliException is >> extended from SPL's RuntimeException if available at compile time) >> >> btw. I don't see a reason for building basic extensions as shared... > In the other way, SPL requires compiled-in XML library because if even I can > get XML in shared extension then SPL will be without SimpleXMLIterator, etc. > Should I consider spl with simplexml as basic extensions? In that case you don't need SimpleXMLIterator from SPL and that's it (done automatically for you by your decision). And you cannot build SPL shared anyway. > I'd like to have very light php binary so it could be used as interpreter for > system scripts. Why must it be lightweight for that? Do you really belive that loading the completion library from newer bash or zsh is lightweight and tiny? Best regards, Marcus mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
