Nope, Edin was right. It's valid in both senses.
Zeev
At 11:50 19-10-01, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
>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]
