* Thus wrote Binay Agarwal ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> Hi everybody,
>
> Lot of places in manual i came across using "ereg_replace" or "ereg" is very
> resource intensive and hence its better to use "preg_replace" or "str_replace" or
> "strpos" if they do the jobs.
>
I believe the use of ereg_replace in the samples you see is mainly
due to the fact that not until recently has preg_* function been
enabled by default. So it would make sense for the manual to use
examples with ereg_* functions so the example would be garuenteed
to work.
I would even suggest someone to use str_replace over preg_replace.
The fact being that anytime you call a regular expression function
it has to compile the expression and then apply that compiled
expression to the string. Where the str_replace is directly
manipulating the string which is quicker than preg_replace's
method. The only time the overhead is acceptable would be when
you're string is not entirely known, so:
preg_replace('foo-bar-', '', $str);
Can simply be changed to:
str_replace('foo-bar-', '', $str);
The expression, however:
preg_replace('foo-\w+-', '', $str);
Can't be done with str_replace.
As for the resouce usage vs. ereg and preg, I believe it is
entirely the nature of the libraries that they use. I don't think
the source of the functions will reveal too much.
just a few of my thoughts on this subject.
Thanks for your time.
Curt
--
"I used to think I was indecisive, but now I'm not so sure."
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
