On Monday, July 9, 2001, at 09:42  PM, Andi Gutmans wrote:
> At 04:04 PM 7/9/2001 -0500, Brian Moon wrote:
>> It is not so much BC.  It is more like unexpected new behavior.
>> As of now, a bad programmer might have this:
>> /www/site.com/include/file.php
>> /www/site.com/include/config.php
>> /www/site.com/index.php
>> /www/site.com/config.php
>> if index.php includes include/file.php which includes 
>> "config.php", the
>> config in the main dir gets included.
>> Now, in the future, if the main config.php is not there, the 
>> one in the
>> include file gets included.  Now, granted, this may not be the 
>> best case,
>> but it would cause some confusion if someone was not well 
>> aware of this
>> change.
>> I am still +1, but think it should be at least a 4.1 thing.
> Does others also think it should wait for 4.1 or later? If so 
> I'll leave it for now (I'll have more free time :).

I have about ~200 files that use the behavior of the current 
version. In some cases, to an (internal) advantage. I'll alter 
the example a bit, to clarify the difference between my includes 
and "page" files:

and add a few more:


Regardless of how we handle it , it may break code that relies 
on the prior behaviours.... 4.1 might be good, in those 
circumstances. I _do_ think it's "broken", but, unfortunately, I 
do not share a brain with all of my coding staffers, so this 
code style (error?) has crept in.


[EMAIL PROTECTED], 520-326-6109, http://www.opus1.com/ron/
The opinions expressed in this email are not necessarily those 
of myself,
my employers, or any of the other little voices in my head.

PHP Development Mailing List <http://www.php.net/>
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