Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:18546
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20050829215530.03989c10@localhost>
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 21:55:50 -0700
To: "Sara Golemon" <pollita@php.net>,"Gabor Hojtsy" <gabor@hojtsy.hu>
Cc: <internals@lists.php.net>
In-Reply-To: <00cd01c5acd6$591f27c0$5c8be5a9@ohr.berkeley.edu>
References: <43135638.4050100@hojtsy.hu>
	<00cd01c5acd6$591f27c0$5c8be5a9@ohr.berkeley.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: omitting T_CLOSE_TAG
From: andi@zend.com (Andi Gutmans)

It is quite intentional and will stick around forever :)

Andi

At 01:14 PM 8/29/2005, Sara Golemon wrote:
> > 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
>
>--
>PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
>To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php