Re: HTTP_USER_AGENT?

>In article <20020711034110.14263.qmail@pb1.pair.com>, >hesterloli@hotmail.com says... >> For example in a book discussing PHP 3 it says: >> >> <? >> phpinfo(); >> ?> >> >> This works just fine. In a book that discusses PHP 4 it says: >> >> <? >> php_info() >> ?> >> >> This gives "Fatal error: Call to undefined function: php_info() in >> c:\inetpub\wwwroot\php\phpinfo.php on line 2." >> >> So it's not just backwards compatibility it is careless planning. This is not >> good. I will have to search hi and lo to determine if a failure is due to >> incorrect syntax because of version and not just careless typing on my part. As far as I know, php_info() has never been a documented function. The manual has always re-directed requests for php_info to phpinfo. Try it yourself: http://php.net/php_info This is not a "new" behaviour nor a change in the language -- It's people using an undocumented alias that they shouldn't. I do not understand why people insist on using undocumented features, much less putting them into text books. Don't do that. PHP actually has a pretty good history as far as backwards compatibility goes. Not perfect, perhaps, but pretty good. I suggest you complain to the Author, Technical Editor, or Publisher of the book. If that doesn't suit, feel free to write your web-pages in Fortran 77 :-) -- Like Music? http://l-i-e.com/artists.htm