> Ok, so I'll use your method. By the way, there was nothing inherent in the
> two places you used 'inherent', on this topic :)
php_html_puts is simple, consistent and easy to follow.
These are its essential characteristics, and thus they are
inherent. But I digress.
> Again, I fail to understand the logic behind it. I'll change the space
> handling code to your method (which is indeed nicer); Why on earth would
> we need to have a stupid HTML printout function as a function pointer?
If you would also address the two performance aspects I
mentioned earlier, I would divert from my current stance that
php_html_puts should be used further.
Oh, wait and there is a third issue I did not think of
earlier.
Because zend_html_puts does not convert the whole string and
calls ZEND_PUTC/_PUTS for each token, not only does that
cause a TSRMLS_FETCH for every token, it also adds a jump
over an indirect function pointer each time (zend_write).
Thousands of such calls can easily add up and introduce a
significant and in this case unnecessary overhead.
php_html_puts can avoid this, because it knows about
PHPWRITE and calls it only once per string, instead of
a few dozen times.
The last point cannot be easily addressed other than by
supporting a redefinition of zend_html_puts by the
application.
- Sascha Experience IRCG
http://schumann.cx/ http://schumann.cx/ircg
--
PHP Development Mailing List <http://www.php.net/>
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
