Do you volunteer to maintain 2 * (number of translations) of the information about which streams/wrappers are present?
That is the reason that I moved the wrapper information into an appendix, because it made reading about this stuff difficult (and the fopen() reference page unreadable). --Wez. On Fri, 3 Jan 2003, Philip Olson wrote: > > > When are certain streams not available, like, I assume > > > allow_url_fopen dictates the availability of the http stream? > > > FTP module for ftp, etc. > > > > > This is all documented in Apendix I (which is linked a couple times from > > ref.stream), do you think we need to go into it in detail on ref.stream as > > well? > > I'm struggling with a response to this but in the end > I feel the answer is yes. Here's why: > > a) Users should never be expected to read about > the streams API much like users are never > expected to understand PHP source. > b) This only adds to the confusion on which functions > are PHP functions and which are part of the > API. > c) One day there will be a PHP developers manual > and I assume the streams API docs will be > moved as part of it. So the less we rely on > them now the better. > > Also, I am unable to find this information in the appendix. > > Basically, ref.stream should hold its own and streams api > should only be an enhancement of knowledge for advanced > users, such as PHP source developers. > > Regards, > Philip > > > -- PHP Documentation Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
