2009/5/23 Robert Cummings <robert@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> On Sat, 2009-05-23 at 14:43 +0100, Stuart wrote:
>> 2009/5/23 Afan Pasalic <afan@xxxxxxxx>:
>> > short hack works like a charm!
>> > :-)
>>
>> It may work but output buffers are relatively expensive. The eval
>> function will return the value the eval'd code returns, so just stick
>> a return statement at the end of the string you're eval'ing.
>
> Where di you hear that output buffers are expensive? I have found the
> following:
>
> <?php
>
> ob_start();
>
> for( $i = 0; $i < 10000000; $i++ )
> {
> echo 'blaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah';
> }
>
> $foo = ob_get_contents();
> ob_end_clean();
>
> ?>
>
> To consistently be faster than the following:
>
> <?php
>
> for( $i = 0; $i < 10000000; $i++ )
> {
> $foo .= 'blaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah';
> }
>
> ?>
>
> However, if I do the following:
>
> <?php
>
> for( $i = 0; $i < 10000000; $i++ )
> {
> ob_start();
> echo 'blaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah';
> $foo .= ob_get_contents();
> ob_end_clean();
> }
>
> ?>
>
> The run-time is approximately 3 times slower... not exactly expensive
> considering it incorporates the concatenation as well as the output
> buffering.
Context is everything Rob.
I said *relatively* expensive because the comparison was between using
an output buffer to capture a value from a call to eval compared to
simply returning the value from the eval'd code.
Context.
-Stuart
--
http://stut.net/
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
