On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 4:57 PM, Peter Lind <peter.e.lind@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 21 May 2011 17:34, Stuart Dallas <stuart@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 4:24 PM, Peter Lind <peter.e.lind@xxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > >> > >> On 21 May 2011 17:18, Stuart Dallas <stuart@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> *snip* > >> > >> >> Again, this depends upon what your url scheme looks like - and > without > >> >> knowing that, there's simple no clue as to whether or not this is a > >> >> good solution to the problem (though it might be a good solution to A > >> >> problem). > >> > > >> > Again, I disagree. If you have an example of a URL structure where > this > >> > would not work I'd love to hear it. > >> > -Stuart > >> > >> Having to replace several times just in order to figure out the path > >> to your script is pointless if you know the name of the script (which > >> you always do - it's __FILE__ ) and you're using a one-to-one > >> request-to-script scheme. Then just grab the part of the url up to and > >> including your scriptname. > > > > Well, it would be basename(__FILE__), but that's beside the point. In > this > > particular case, where the PHP filename is the last part of the URL, that > > will indeed work. However, as you have pointed out several times that's > not > > always the case and I tend to write generic, defensive code rather than > make > > assumptions. > > Not a bad habit. I would personally go with "let's either find out or > make a decision" instead of wasting time on coding for situations that > will crop up. > Assumptions cost money, and if you haven't discovered that yet then you've either not been in the software development game very long or you've been lucky so far. Hold on to that feeling, cos you can't get it back when it's gone! -Stuart -- Stuart Dallas 3ft9 Ltd http://3ft9.com/
