Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:100442
Return-Path: <ajf@ajf.me>
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net
Received: (qmail 48874 invoked from network); 7 Sep 2017 13:43:14 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1)
  by localhost with SMTP; 7 Sep 2017 13:43:14 -0000
X-Host-Fingerprint: 95.148.70.109 unknown  
Received: from [95.148.70.109] ([95.148.70.109:28339] helo=localhost.localdomain)
	by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP
	id FE/71-10715-1FC41B95 for <internals@lists.php.net>; Thu, 07 Sep 2017 09:43:13 -0400
Message-ID: <FE.71.10715.1FC41B95@pb1.pair.com>
To: internals@lists.php.net
References: <8C.6B.10715.4A4A0B95@pb1.pair.com>
 <CAF+90c-y1zJnuOqa3ZOSzEkPtFG1R5ZauP_8BLtN41mrsXB5RA@mail.gmail.com>
 <1E.30.10715.1EE31B95@pb1.pair.com>
 <CAF+90c_hfBfiwcHHhbCDXh+Ok2S0=iTpSKQjx9UNtzJT1WxQVA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2017 14:43:09 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:49.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Firefox/49.0 SeaMonkey/2.46
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAF+90c_hfBfiwcHHhbCDXh+Ok2S0=iTpSKQjx9UNtzJT1WxQVA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Posted-By: 95.148.70.109
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Consider only ignoring newlines for final ?> in a file
From: ajf@ajf.me (Andrea Faulds)

Hi,

Nikita Popov wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 2:43 PM, Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me> wrote:
>
>> Hi Nikita,
>>
>> Nikita Popov wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> It also goes the other way. Whether you want to drop the newline after ?>
>>> depends (roughly) on whether the code is control flow (drop) or trailing
>>> output (don't drop). If the newline is not dropped anymore it doesn't mean
>>> that the output will look nice, it's just going to be broken in a
>>> different
>>> way.
>>>
>>>
>> I understand that it should be dropped for “control flow” code (maybe not
>> the best term, I misunderstood what you meant at first). That's why I
>> suggest ignoring the following newline only for the ?> at the end of the
>> file, because I can't think of another place where you would have a ?> and
>> *not* intend output immediately after it.
>>
>> So I'm not sure I understand your objection, from that standpoint. Did I
>> miss something?
>>
>> Regards.
>>
>
> I'm referring to code like
>
> <ul>
> <?php foreach ($data as $value): ?>
>     <li><?= $value ?></li>
> <?php endforeach; ?>
> </ul>
>
> Currently this would produce the output
>
> <ul>
>     <li>Foo</li>
>     <li>Bar</li>
> </ul>
>
> Without the trailing newline elision it would produce
>
> <ul>
>
>     <li>Foo</li>
>     <li>Bar</li>
>
> </ul>
>
> I always assumed that this is the reason why we do this in the first place.

Ah. See, it's actually that kind of code that is my problem. A practical 
example would be:

<table>
     <?php foreach($rows as $row): ?>
         <tr>
             <?php foreach ($row as $column): ?>
                 <td><?=htmlspecialchars($column)?></td>
             <?php endforeach; ?>
         </tr>
     <?php endforeach; ?>
</table>

which currently produces:

<table>
             <tr>
                             <td>foo</td>
                             <td>bar</td>
                     </tr>
             <tr>
                             <td>baz</td>
                             <td>qux</td>
                     </tr>
     </table>

The doubled-up indentation from missing newlines makes it into a mess. 
And this is even worse in practice when you have more nested control 
flow. Extra newlines would be fine here, but missing newlines aren't.

Thanks.

-- 
Andrea Faulds
https://ajf.me/