On 09/04/12 13:29, Tom Boutell wrote: > I would like to clarify what this RFC actually says. Let's try to keep > this thread to the pros and cons of this specific proposal. > > The following new keyword would be introduced: > > require_path I don't like the keyword name. Too confusing with the include_path configuration option for something very different.
What about require_file ? > This keyword has two parameters of which the second is optional. The > first parameter is the path (filename or URL) to be required, and > behaves exactly as the sole parameter of the require keyword behaves. > The second parameter is an associative array. Does it require brackets? > If 'warn' is present and true, a loading or compilation error results > in E_WARNING (per the current behavior of the include keyword). If > warn is absent or false, a loading or compilation error results in > E_COMPILE_ERROR (per the current behavior of the require keyword). What if I want to silently ignore a missing-file condition? Ie. no warning or compile error if there file is not there (presumably to skip the need of a file_exist), yet receive all warnings generated by the included code. What about 'missing'=> 'error' / 'warn' / 'ignore' ? > If 'code' is present and true, the parser begins reading the file as > if a <?php open tag had already been encountered. If code is absent or > false, the parser reads the file beginning in “HTML mode,” exactly as > the require keyword does today. I think "reading the file as if a <?php open tag had already been encountered" should add "with the exception that an explicit <?php exactly at the beginning of the file is not a parse error but silently ignored". Best regards -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
