Can we at least confirm that this works in the current release candidate? It
works fine on my build, but Rasmus is having problems with it.
test.php
=====
<?php
include 'testlib.php';
include 'testlib.php';
test();
?>
testlib.php
======
<?php
if (!defined('_TESTLIB_PHP')) {
define ('_TESTLIB_PHP', 1);
function test() {
print "Function test()\n";
}
}
?>
> If we were designing the language from the ground up I would agree with
you.
> However, we are talking about a language that is already being used by
lots
> of people. Therefore I see no reason to break the old code.
>
> Brian Moon
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> dealnews.com, Inc.
> Makers of dealnews, dealmac
> http://dealnews.com/ | http://dealmac.com/
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Edin Kadribasic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Rasmus Lerdorf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: "Stanislav Malyshev" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Daniel Beckham"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Brian Moon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "PHP
> Development" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 5:22 AM
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] New zend_compile.c to solve all of the duplicate
> function problems
>
>
> > I guess I do not understand. The following example works just fine in
PHP
> > 4.1.0RC1:
> >
> > test.php
> > =====
> > <?php
> > include 'testlib.php';
> > include 'testlib.php';
> > test();
> > ?>
> > testlib.php
> > ======
> > <?php
> > if (!defined('_TESTLIB_PHP')) {
> > define ('_TESTLIB_PHP', 1);
> >
> > function test() {
> > print "Function test()\n";
> > }
> > }
> > ?>
> >
> > This however does not work and IMHO should not work. (It did work on PHP
> > 4.0.6)
> > testlib.php
> > ======
> > <?php
> > if (!defined('_TESTLIB_PHP')) {
> > define ('_TESTLIB_PHP', 1);
> > return;
> > }
> > function test() {
> > print "Function test()\n";
> > }
> > ?>
> >
> > The second example utilises the fact that the script compiling stoped at
> > return, while now it does not. I really fail to see what's wrong with
> using
> > the first example and how that cannot be used for preventing multiple
> > function definitions.
> >
> >
> > Edin
> >
> > > It is valid in the sense that the code would not be executed the
second
> > > time, but it isn't valid for preventing multiple function definitions
> > > inside that block. ie. no conditional function definitions.
> > >
> > > -Rasmus
> > >
> > > On Fri, 19 Oct 2001, Edin Kadribasic wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Since you can no longer do:
> > > > >
> > > > > if(!defined(_FOO_INC)):
> > > > > define('_FOO_INC',1);
> > > > >
> > > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > endif;
> > > > >
> > > > > to protect a file from multiple inclusion within the file itself,
> some
> > > >
> > > > This is still a valid construct. I could find nothing in the
> discussion
> > that
> > > > would indicate otherwise. The only thing that does not work now, and
> it
> > did
> > > > before was:
> > > >
> > > > if(!defined(_FOO_INC)):
> > > > define('_FOO_INC',1);
> > > > return;
> > > > endif;
> > > > ...
> > > > ...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> 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]
>
>
>
--
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]
