Re: Named output buffers

Quoting Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com>: > I still fail to see how this is beneficial. Are you aware of the existing > mechanism? Currently, you can call ob_start() several times, and the > output buffering system transparently works with a stack of output > buffers. You can also register a callback function that will be executed > when output buffering ends, instead of plainly sending out the buffer, if > you wish. No, I wasn't aware of either of those. Even a quick note in the documentation would be great. > The current system allows you to write reusable functions, that don't rely > on any specific context. Adding random access seems a bit like a mess to me. I agree completely, now that I know how things work. -chuck -- Charles Hagenbuch, <chuck@horde.org> -- "Christmas is odd. What other time of year can you meet in front of a dead tree and eat candy from your socks?" - a crossword puzzle