Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:44029
Return-Path: <isroman@km.ru>
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net
Received: (qmail 98727 invoked from network); 19 May 2009 02:00:31 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1)
  by localhost with SMTP; 19 May 2009 02:00:31 -0000
Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([127.0.0.1:15851])
	by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ECSTREAM
	id 78/32-05315-DB2121A4 for <internals@lists.php.net>; Mon, 18 May 2009 22:00:29 -0400
X-Host-Fingerprint: 69.221.33.195 adsl-69-221-33-195.dsl.sfldmi.sbcglobal.net  
Received: from [69.221.33.195] ([69.221.33.195:28893] helo=localhost.localdomain)
	by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP
	id 94/6F-05315-44EF11A4 for <internals@lists.php.net>; Mon, 18 May 2009 20:33:08 -0400
Message-ID: <94.6F.05315.44EF11A4@pb1.pair.com>
To: internals@lists.php.net
Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 17:33:00 -0700
Lines: 55
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1933
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1933
X-Posted-By: 69.221.33.195
Subject: Is there a technical reason <?= considered a "short tag"?
From: isroman@km.ru ("Roman I")

From what I know, in the future versions of PHP short tags are going to be
disabled by default. Considering the conflicts with XML syntax, that's
understandable. However, is there a technical reason to consider <?=  a
short tag? From what I know, it doesn't conflict with XML notation, and it
is really handy when writing templates. Moreover, keeping it independent
from short tags settin is likely to decrease the number of scipts that will
need to be rewritten, since some of them use the echo shortut without ever
using vanilla <? (again, templates).

I see this code in zend_language_scanner.l:

<INITIAL>"<%="|"<?=" {
 if ((yytext[1]=='%' && CG(asp_tags)) || (yytext[1]=='?' && CG(short_tags)))
{
  zendlval->value.str.val = yytext; /* no copying - intentional */
  zendlval->value.str.len = yyleng;
  zendlval->type = IS_STRING;
  BEGIN(ST_IN_SCRIPTING);
  return T_OPEN_TAG_WITH_ECHO;
 } else {
  zendlval->value.str.val = (char *) estrndup(yytext, yyleng);
  zendlval->value.str.len = yyleng;
  zendlval->type = IS_STRING;
  return T_INLINE_HTML;
 }
}

Would it be possible to split this rule in two?

<INITIAL>"<%=" {
 if ((yytext[1]=='%' && CG(asp_tags))) {
  zendlval->value.str.val = yytext; /* no copying - intentional */
  zendlval->value.str.len = yyleng;
  zendlval->type = IS_STRING;
  BEGIN(ST_IN_SCRIPTING);
  return T_OPEN_TAG_WITH_ECHO;
 } else {
  zendlval->value.str.val = (char *) estrndup(yytext, yyleng);
  zendlval->value.str.len = yyleng;
  zendlval->type = IS_STRING;
  return T_INLINE_HTML;
 }
}

<INITIAL>"<?=" {
    zendlval->value.str.val = yytext; /* no copying - intentional */
    zendlval->value.str.len = yyleng;
    zendlval->type = IS_STRING;
    BEGIN(ST_IN_SCRIPTING);
    return T_OPEN_TAG_WITH_ECHO;
}

If so, are are there any obvious negative consequences of doing so?