Dave Goodchild wrote: > Wouldn't it have been less hassle to not send that comment when all I > was doing was trying to help, am pressed for time, and copied and pasted > my solution? no hassle on my part. :-D I doubt you want me to point out that you original comment that I commented on and the reply thereof you sent both constitute a greater waste of your time (and less confusion on the part of the OP) than if you had just removed the 'raw_param' from your original code snippet), given that your so 'pressed for time' (which is, in essence, nothing more than a state of mind). "do or do not, there is no try" said the funnny, little green man. > > On 1/26/07, * Jochem Maas* <jochem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > <mailto:jochem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote: > > Dave Goodchild wrote: > > This is what I use: > > > > $site = (!preg_match('#^http://#', $_POST['c_site'])) ? > > raw_param(trim(strip_tags("http:\/\/" . $_POST['c_site']))) : > > raw_param(trim(strip_tags($_POST['c_site']))); > > this is much better: http://php.net/parse_url > > > > > don't worry about raw_param, that's a function of my own, but you > get the > > idea. > > wouldn't it have been less hassle to delete the raw_param() call than > to try and explain it's existence? > > > > > > > > -- > http://www.web-buddha.co.uk -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
