|
|
php.net | support | documentation | report a bug | advanced search | search howto | statistics | random bug | login |
[2009-06-14 03:34 UTC] cory dot mawhorter at ephective dot com
Description:
------------
Two suggestions for include/require.
1) A callback function.
2) Custom include/require functions.
Reproduce code:
---------------
Callback function example:
function verify_path($absfile) {
return (basename($absfile) == 'some-file.php');
}
set_include_cb('verify_path');
include 'some-file.php'; // cb returns true: file included
include 'some-other-file.php'; // cb returns false: warning
require 'some-other-file.php'; // cb returns false: fatal error
I could see this being useful in more situations than simply verifying the include path is correct.
An include/require replacement:
function my_custom_include($inc) {
// of course, includes into the scope of the function
include($inc);
// it'd be nice if you could tell it to include into
// the root scope or whatever... this might be difficult
// to do for security reasons... but i'm still throwing
// it out there
}
my_custom_include('some-file.php');
PatchesPull RequestsHistoryAllCommentsChangesGit/SVN commits
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Copyright © 2001-2025 The PHP GroupAll rights reserved. |
Last updated: Tue Jun 24 22:01:33 2025 UTC |
To be honest, I don't think either would be necessary, however while I can see some slight sense for 1), I don't see any need for 2) at all - if you want something like that: Just write such a function, but make sure to use $GLOBALS['foo'] instead of just $foo in your include file. Every other way to do this would mess with scoping. And believe me: If you don't want to do SOMETHING, it's messing with the scope. Anyway, my two cents to 1): Imo this feature (even if unnecessary in the first place) would be of much more use, if it would return false on failure (as stated), but the *actual* file name to be included on success. This way, you could extend the file naming scheme to, for example, have "mod:bla" include/require the "bla" script from your modules directory. Additionally it might be nice to have a second parameter telling you whether it's an include or a require process (maybe even whether it's a _once), so you could decide to soften that error. Anyway, as I said: This is nothing that couldn't be done without such a callback in the first place: You could just include sanitize('foo'); instead.