Hi, I've just finished translating the new strings into zh-TW (Traditional Chinese) as well as revising some older strings. There is something I would like to point out about these PHP includes: wouldn't it be more efficient to use this kind of syntax: $blah = array( 'one' => 'One', 'two' => 'Two' ); as opposed to this? $blah = array(); $blah['one'] = 'One'; $blah['two'] = 'Two';
- kourge
kourge wrote:
Hi, I've just finished translating the new strings into zh-TW (Traditional Chinese) as well as revising some older strings.
Thanks!
There is something I would like to point out about these PHP includes: wouldn't it be more efficient to use this kind of syntax: $blah = array( 'one' => 'One', 'two' => 'Two' ); as opposed to this? $blah = array(); $blah['one'] = 'One'; $blah['two'] = 'Two';
It does not matter which way we save those arrays. The difference in parsing times is not measurable for me.
~Thomas
So...they're just easier to generate?
- kourge
On 5/17/07, Thomas Bruederli roundcube@gmail.com wrote:
kourge wrote:
Hi, I've just finished translating the new strings into zh-TW (Traditional Chinese) as well as revising some older strings.
Thanks!
There is something I would like to point out about these PHP includes: wouldn't it be more efficient to use this kind of syntax: $blah = array( 'one' => 'One', 'two' => 'Two' ); as opposed to this? $blah = array(); $blah['one'] = 'One'; $blah['two'] = 'Two';
It does not matter which way we save those arrays. The difference in parsing times is not measurable for me.
~Thomas
-
kourge -
Thomas Bruederli