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

I'd *really* like to avoid having two copies of the same code, though. Please remove the duplicated implementation... Zeev At 18:24 12/05/2002, Sascha Schumann wrote:

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