Re: Re: Any idea why we have two html_puts()'s?

> What I'm pointing out is that there are no 'inherent flaws' in the 'dog > slow' implementation that we already had for a couple of years. If you > want to add buffering, we can add buffering. There's no point in adding a > specialized buffered implementation. Well, php_html_puts has several advantages: - it is buffering as you already noted without having to rely on the huge output-buffering infrastructure. I have not benchmarked it, but I do assume that it is noticably slower than php_html_puts. - it is faster due to passing TSRMLS around, instead of having to fetch it for *every* single examined byte. This is especially significant in threaded environments such as Apache 2 or ISAPI. - it is there and working fully. :-) - Sascha Experience IRCG http://schumann.cx/ http://schumann.cx/ircg