Hi all, On the the include_path php.net says:
"Using a . in the include path allows for relative includes as it means the current directory. However, it is more efficient to explicitly use include './file' than having PHP always check the current directory for every include. " (http://www.php.net/manual/en/ini.core.php#ini.include-path) While this does not state that starting every include with "./" is equivalent to having an include_path that is ".", it does suggest exactly that. However, I tried this in the field, and came to a different conclusion. (I included my experiment below.) Is the idea that those two are equivalent wrong? Am I doing something wrong? Is something strange going on? Can anyone clear this issue up for me? Thanks, Jasper --- The experiment: On a machine where the include_path is ".", I had the following file structure: - A.php - B.php - C.php - file.php - sub/includeA.php - sub/includeB.php - sub/includeC.php The content of the files: A.php <?php include 'file.php' ?> B.php <?php include './file.php' ?> C.php <?php include './../file.php' ?> file.php <?php echo "Included successfully!"; ?> includeA.php <?php include '../A.php' ?> includeB.php <?php include '../B.php' ?> includeC.php <?php include '../C.php' ?> Now if you visit A.php or B.php the file will be included successfully. Obviously, C.php fails to include anything. includeA.php works all the same, but includeB.php can't find file.php. includeC.php, on the other hand, finds it just fine. This would suggest that include_path being "." means you can include from the path of the current file, while starting your "./" means you start looking from the current parh. -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
