Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:36358
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain lerdorf.com from 204.11.219.139 cause and error)
Message-ID: <47E5C3CB.8070202@lerdorf.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2008 19:43:23 -0700
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.4 (Macintosh/20070604)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Stanislav Malyshev <stas@zend.com>
CC: PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
References: <47E3F714.60302@zend.com> <47E40848.1060103@zend.com> <7f3ed2c30803211412v299a0c36m86cabb27b26c232@mail.gmail.com> <47E42657.7010408@zend.com> <7f3ed2c30803211420s6cdd06bcy331880346fa68cb@mail.gmail.com> <47E4281C.80706@zend.com> <fe05d1540803211553v3345b209k2051ae898c7d2376@mail.gmail.com> <47E44A1A.2020703@smashlabs.com> <fe05d1540803211723r13569c1cyc2d038442bc9b227@mail.gmail.com> <1206187799.10080.26.camel@localhost> <fe05d1540803220527p7cf171d0k7c7c862729fd423f@mail.gmail.com> <1206189396.10080.33.camel@localhost> <195632076.20080322195842@marcus-boerger.de> <47E5B70B.5070506@zend.com> <009901c88c89$22ce1b00$c6fc1f3e@foxbox> <47E5BB8F.6010806@zend.com>
In-Reply-To: <47E5BB8F.6010806@zend.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] short_open_tag
From: rasmus@lerdorf.com (Rasmus Lerdorf)

Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
>> I see your point... but wouldn't it be better not to need that? 
>> Johannes' idea seemed good to me, always assuming it's do-able.
> 
> Well, yes, it would indeed, but we have a lot of <?= templates now so 
> either we allow <?= on no-short-tags (if XML guys out there will be OK 
> with it I might be OK too, as IMO no valid XML would have <?=) or invent 
> some other syntax - in which case a) it probably would be worse than <?= 
> since you hardly can get shorter and "opening tag + =" is kind-of 
> de-facto standard for such things by now and b) it's take time to 
> educate people to use new syntax, especially that unlike <?= it won't 
> work on PHP < 5.3 so people would stay away from it for a couple of 
> years (heck, people still use PHP 4 out there! not talking about 5.0).
> 
> So we have this:
> 1. Leave it as is and be in World of Configuration Pain (TM)
> 2. Allow <?= independent of short tags (my +1, dunno about XML templates 
> guys)

I'd be ok with that too.  It's not a valid PI tag, as far as I know, but 
I don't think that is a problem.

One interesting observation is that there was a slight BC break related 
to short tags between PHP 4 and 5 that I hadn't noticed before.

<?= /* 123 */ ?>

Works in PHP4 but results in a syntax error in PHP 5.

-Rasmus