Re: include vs require

I didn't say the overhead was huge, just that it was there. ;) And it is measurable. -Rasmus On Sun, 23 Feb 2003, George Schlossnagle wrote: > Yeah... besides the hash table lookup, what exactly is the overhead? > They both end up calling zend_fopen, which is the 'expense' of the > vacuous call. Am I missing something significant? The overhead seems > miniscule (it doesn't look like any additional system calls should be > made, just some O(1) userspace stuff.) > > George > > On Sunday, February 23, 2003, at 05:19 PM, Tim Thorpe wrote: > > > I'm not trying to start another IT[X] flamewar here. I'm just pointing > > out that as PEAR grows, the probability of two simultaneously used > > libraries having a common dependency increases. A minor sacrifice to > > overhead seems a worthy cause if it will prevent (even small) headaches > > down the road. *don't flame me* :) > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Rasmus Lerdorf [mailto:rasmus@lerdorf.com] > > Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2003 3:51 PM > > To: Tim Thorpe > > Cc: pear-dev@lists.php.net > > Subject: RE: [PEAR-DEV] include vs require > > > > > > On Sun, 23 Feb 2003, Tim Thorpe wrote: > > > >> It was my understanding that require_once was made part of the PEAR > >> coding standard to prevent files from being re-included when > >> dependencies got hairy. > > > > Correct. But if the dependencies are not hairy, then it is pure > > overhead. > > > > -Rasmus > > > > > > > > -- > > PEAR Development Mailing List (http://pear.php.net/) > > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > > > > -- > PEAR Development Mailing List (http://pear.php.net/) > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php >