Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:36303 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 95054 invoked from network); 21 Mar 2008 22:06:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 21 Mar 2008 22:06:27 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=rquadling@googlemail.com; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=rquadling@googlemail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain googlemail.com designates 66.249.82.224 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: rquadling@googlemail.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 66.249.82.224 wx-out-0506.google.com Received: from [66.249.82.224] ([66.249.82.224:47299] helo=wx-out-0506.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 28/F3-26785-26134E74 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 17:06:26 -0500 Received: by wx-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id s14so1816825wxc.26 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 15:06:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.115.32.8 with SMTP id k8mr6798578waj.89.1206137183079; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 15:06:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.114.209.15 with HTTP; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 15:06:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <10845a340803211506r183f3c62ga600f8553e3e58e1@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 22:06:22 +0000 Reply-To: RQuadling@GoogleMail.com To: "Elizabeth M Smith" Cc: internals@lists.php.net In-Reply-To: <68.F2.26785.55E24E74@pb1.pair.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <47E3F714.60302@zend.com> <47E40E6E.5030103@zend.com> <47E410C6.80605@sci.fi> <47E4146A.8010409@zend.com> <47E41765.4080007@zend.com> <111239762.20080321212310@marcus-boerger.de> <47E41C9F.4040105@zend.com> <935033306.20080321223836@marcus-boerger.de> <68.F2.26785.55E24E74@pb1.pair.com> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] short_open_tag From: rquadling@googlemail.com ("Richard Quadling") On 21/03/2008, Elizabeth M Smith wrote: > Wow, noisy... And having made the commit to the dox before the revert, I'm still reeling/reading to try and see which way I would go... > I'd argue that a the difference" between the ugliness of the long version and the need to > not break php every time an xml declaration pops up in a file. Even > gettext has a nice _() function shortcut which is less typing than echo > $blah; in every php tag set, and then you wouldn't be fighting with the > potential breakage. The argument that if some new syntax only goes into > 5.3, people can't use it doesn't really hold water here because you > wouldn't be able to rely on flipping the short_tags switch before 5.3 > either. > > I can see both sides of the story, and really don't have a preference - > I'm curious as to the opinions of someone OTHER than Marcus, Stas, > Pierre and Jani ;) If you saw ... or what would you assume this meant? From this, I would say it isn't a function call as I would need to add () to it. It is not an assignment or declaration. If it was documented that a PHP statement consisting of just a variable name would echo a string, then I think this would solve all the problems of readability. What would you assume a non programmer thought of it? If they were told "this is how you put a PHP variable into a template" would they just go with it? Ok, again, I'm no internals expert. Maybe the _$varname; would be more pleasing. On the plus side there is only 1 PHP tag. No matter what happens