Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:58639
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.214.170 as permitted sender)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of adamjonr@gmail.com designates 10.60.12.230 as permitted sender) client-ip=10.60.12.230;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAKOpQSzYRBFcsmmZmEd3sucYe7UpdMEOsSh1F+f8b_yTXXBBMg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4F54C488.6050209@lsces.co.uk>
	<CA+Ky_uPMrT_U3kvdJ7D6HzaSzdSp80Bb+kFex=NhWFk9F7Y97Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAKOpQSyaG3tJCS2MT5f0HFa13Vw1zkBWLPRNMcNXUM5-1b-amw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJzDObciKmLEQ8VkH5na1TA__hRfhLApBbAVjrx4RC3OVnwzeA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAORXhGL7se8THD3_XZPabSe0H1xBTF16ypu9CxjrFMvCD9TU=Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAKOpQSzYRBFcsmmZmEd3sucYe7UpdMEOsSh1F+f8b_yTXXBBMg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2012 22:44:24 -0500
Message-ID: <CAJzDObdWV6SwrBb4c6KZrYfHPCGggzbmCviq2nAMA70dXfbtMA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kris Craig <kris.craig@gmail.com>
Cc: internals@lists.php.net
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8ff1ce26f0e5e204ba8adb68
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] '<?=' with PHP5.3.10
From: adamjonr@gmail.com (Adam Jon Richardson)

--e89a8ff1ce26f0e5e204ba8adb68
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 7:03 PM, Kris Craig <kris.craig@gmail.com> wrote:

> Certainly.  I don't believe this is about "inclusion" any more than
> creating a function called "ech" as an alias for "echo" would be.  The <?
> tag, as you all know, creates problems when working with XML.  Furthermore,
> I've never understood the "it's easier to read" argument since I've found
> it to be exactly the opposite.  The <? as opposed to <?php, at least for
> me, makes it more difficult to "at a glance" see where the PHP code begins
> (i.e. it's smaller and more ambiguous).  Also, since many hosts disable it
> by default, getting apps/frameworks that use them working can be an added
> pain.
>
> On the other hand, considering how verbose many of our function names are,
> I've never understood why the extra 3 characters (or 2 now that it's <?=)
> is such a burden that we have to deal with all the above annoyances
> instead.  Like I said, other than the fraction of a second it takes to type
> "php", I really don't see any value in this.
>

The tag <?= isn't a short version for <?php or <?. The <?= allows you to
echo output, so these two examples are equivalent:

<?php echo $var; ?>

<?= $var ?>

http://www.php.net/manual/en/ini.core.php#ini.short-open-tag

Before 5.4, turning off short tags turned off the shorthand echo tag, too.
The value I referenced was regarding the echo form of the tag (<?=), the
form of the tag Lester was troubleshooting. With 5.4, this will no longer
be a concern, as the echo form will always be available.

Adam

--e89a8ff1ce26f0e5e204ba8adb68--