Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:18534
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Message-ID: <00cd01c5acd6$591f27c0$5c8be5a9@ohr.berkeley.edu>
Reply-To: "Sara Golemon" <pollita@php.net>
To: "Gabor Hojtsy" <gabor@hojtsy.hu>
Cc: <internals@lists.php.net>
References: <43135638.4050100@hojtsy.hu>
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 13:14:46 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: omitting T_CLOSE_TAG
From: pollita@php.net ("Sara Golemon")

> I am searching for some evidence in the PHP source code that the
> possibility of omitting the closing PHP tag is absolutely intentional,
> and in fact part of the language syntax, and therefore it is going to be
> supported indefinitely. Digging for T_CLOSE_TAG and similar stuff have
> lead me to nothing.
>
I can't imagine a situation where that level of BC breakage would *EVER* be
permitted.  In fact, last I heard it was recommended practice for PEAR files
to omit the end tag.

I suppose it might accidently break if include were ever shifted to C style
inclusion, but that breakage would wind up being considered a bug in the
"new feature" and could be easily fixed by automatically reseting the lexer
state before and after the include statement.

> Actually I would like to clarify and possibly extend the note on page:
> http://php.net/manual/en/basic-syntax.instruction-separation
>
An example might be helpful...
"<?php echo 'Foo'; ?>" and "<?php echo 'Foo';" are interpreted identically
by PHP.

-Sara