Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:44139
Return-Path: <philip@roshambo.org>
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net
Received: (qmail 27870 invoked from network); 3 Jun 2009 21:13:41 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1)
  by localhost with SMTP; 3 Jun 2009 21:13:41 -0000
Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=philip@roshambo.org; sender-id=unknown
Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=philip@roshambo.org; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain roshambo.org from 209.85.216.187 cause and error)
X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: philip@roshambo.org
X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.216.187 mail-px0-f187.google.com  
Received: from [209.85.216.187] ([209.85.216.187:60994] helo=mail-px0-f187.google.com)
	by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP
	id AE/7C-19828-387E62A4 for <internals@lists.php.net>; Wed, 03 Jun 2009 17:13:39 -0400
Received: by pxi17 with SMTP id 17so286275pxi.29
        for <internals@lists.php.net>; Wed, 03 Jun 2009 14:13:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.114.88.1 with SMTP id l1mr2163361wab.97.1244063616646;
        Wed, 03 Jun 2009 14:13:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?192.168.1.2? (c-76-22-32-17.hsd1.wa.comcast.net [76.22.32.17])
        by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id g25sm9778980wag.43.2009.06.03.14.13.35
        (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5);
        Wed, 03 Jun 2009 14:13:35 -0700 (PDT)
To: Roman I <isroman@km.ru>
In-Reply-To: <DF.60.63575.1ED812A4@pb1.pair.com>
X-Priority: 3
References: <94.6F.05315.44EF11A4@pb1.pair.com> <77E6891A-AF77-47B5-94DB-FA69D4F7F198@roshambo.org> <DF.60.63575.1ED812A4@pb1.pair.com>
Message-ID: <A52B781A-28BD-4609-811A-9C014E58F9F9@roshambo.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v935.3)
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 14:13:34 -0700
Cc: internals@lists.php.net
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.935.3)
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Is there a technical reason <?= considered a "short tag"?
From: philip@roshambo.org (Philip Olson)


On May 30, 2009, at 12:49 PM, Roman I wrote:

> Philip Olson wrote:
>>
>> On May 18, 2009, at 5:33 PM, Roman I wrote:
>>
>>> From what I know, in the future versions of PHP short tags are going
>>> to be
>>> disabled by default.
>> <snip>
>>
>> Common misunderstanding but the short_open_tag directive will never  
>> be
>> disabled by default. There are distributed php.ini-* files that
>> disable them, but those don't contain default values.
>
> This neither answers nor invalidates the original question, though.

Unfortunately I do not remember everything about this but do know that:

   - Decoupling <?= from short_open_tag was discussed, and did not  
happen
   - Allowing it to be enabled at runtime was discussed, and did not  
happen
   - The issues with <?= and <? are similar... an invalid PI

I've not read every thread or discussion on this (there are many) but  
CVS speaks for itself. Here's one thought comparing the two viewpoints:

   - http://marc.info/?l=php-internals&m=120614525214419&w=2

The following RFC mentions this decoupling, yet was declined:

   - http://wiki.php.net/rfc/shortags

And lastly, the general topic of short tags came up recently while  
several people discussed PHP 6:

   - http://wiki.php.net/summits/pdmnotesmay09

In summary: It's a topic people don't want to talk about. :)

Regards,
Philip