Posted by FFMG on 11/26/07 05:21

Jerry Stuckle;105188 Wrote:
>
> And why are you surprised? Are you having a performance problem? Do
> you see anyplace where this causes a problem? Parsing is quite fast.
> I
> have never seen a performance problem cause by the parser.
>

(Bearing in mind that I have only just started looking at the php
source code)
I am surprised because I thought that once the code was parsed it is
executed, and therefore that the code was only parsed once.

I am not having any issues with the parser or anything, I am just
trying to understand the way it works.

I simply thought that include(...) was faster than the second example I
gave.
But include(...) does pretty much the same work.

FFMG


--

'webmaster forum' (http://www.httppoint.com) | 'Free Blogs'
(http://www.journalhome.com/) | 'webmaster Directory'
(http://www.webhostshunter.com/)
'Recreation Vehicle insurance'
(http://www.insurance-owl.com/other/car_rec.php) | 'Free URL
redirection service' (http://urlkick.com/)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FFMG's Profile: http://www.httppoint.com/member.php?userid=580
View this thread: http://www.httppoint.com/showthread.php?t=22555

Message Posted via the webmaster forum http://www.httppoint.com, (Ad revenue sharing).

• Next in forum: Re: Want search on timestamp ! Any other alternative ??
• Prev in forum: Re: include/require cached and fopen is not?
• Thread view: Re: include/require cached and fopen is not?

[Reply to this message]