if the memory is freed when you reuse the variable names, then probably from a performance standpoint that is the best way to do it?
Hmm. > On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 11:49 AM, Kristina Anderson > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > One thing that I've taken away from this (aside from feeling like an > > idiot!) is that one reason for my introduction of these bugs is a > > holdover from my "ASP" coding style where I name each query $query1, > > query2, etc rather than what I see in a lot of PHP code I've inherited, > > where each query is simply named $query, even if there are 6 or 7 of > > them on the page. > > > > What is the accepted best practice here? I find it very confusing to > > try to read code with 16 items each named $query or $result, but > > my "ASP" style code is clearly introducing other editing issues. > > I don't see how query1, query2 would be any more clear than just using > the same variable name. Using the same variable name indicates that > the previous statement will not be used again and frees the memory. I > prefer using names like $sql and $cursor over $query and $result, > because they are more accurate names. It is clear that "sql" is a > string, and a "cursor" is a pointer to a result set, not actual data. > > -John C. > _______________________________________________ > New York PHP Community Talk Mailing List > http://lists.nyphp.org/mailman/listinfo/talk > > NYPHPCon 2006 Presentations Online > http://www.nyphpcon.com > > Show Your Participation in New York PHP > http://www.nyphp.org/show_participation.php > > _______________________________________________ New York PHP Community Talk Mailing List http://lists.nyphp.org/mailman/listinfo/talk NYPHPCon 2006 Presentations Online http://www.nyphpcon.com Show Your Participation in New York PHP http://www.nyphp.org/show_participation.php
