Yeah, this has been requested several times.
I think that changing the cwd to the directory of an included file makes 
good sense.  It is, indeed, downwards incompatible and may break existing 
applications.  We have 4 options:

1.  Do nothing
2.  Make include() and friends change directory to the directory of the 
file they include.  This makes the most sense, but may break existing apps.
3.  #2, only make it optional
4.  Add the directory of the included file to the include_path when the 
included file is being executed.  It can get a bit nasty with nested 
includes, even though I think it should work.  It's also a bit tricky to 
implement, as the engine doesn't know about include_path (at least right now).

I'm leaning towards #3, even though I don't like the 
yet-another-runtime-option.  It may be justified if we say we're phasing 
out the old functionality in PHP 5.0.


At 18:14 8/7/2001, Andi Gutmans wrote:
>I think one thing that bothers PHP developers is when they do:
>include "../";
>and in they do:
>include "";
>That is not searched for in's current directory 
>automatically. As we pretty much always have the expanded filename of the 
>current executing script I thought it would be nice to add that if 
>is not found in the include_path to take the full path of (i.e. 
>/path/to/foo_inc/ and try opening /path/to/foo_inc/
>What do you guys think?
>PHP Development Mailing List <>
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Zeev Suraski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CTO &  co-founder, Zend Technologies Ltd.

PHP Development Mailing List <>
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to