Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:58640
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 74.125.82.170 as permitted sender)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of kris.craig@gmail.com designates 10.180.79.231 as permitted sender) client-ip=10.180.79.231;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAJzDObdWV6SwrBb4c6KZrYfHPCGggzbmCviq2nAMA70dXfbtMA@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>
	<CAJzDObdWV6SwrBb4c6KZrYfHPCGggzbmCviq2nAMA70dXfbtMA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2012 20:08:58 -0800
Message-ID: <CAKOpQSynPLUnqchtFZLx7HuAF2eKiz5T1j3QrmHw1AES-SkcrQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Adam Jon Richardson <adamjonr@gmail.com>
Cc: internals@lists.php.net
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d044304ecc1e61604ba8b33cb
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] '<?=' with PHP5.3.10
From: kris.craig@gmail.com (Kris Craig)

--f46d044304ecc1e61604ba8b33cb
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Woops ok, you're right about that.

So then, the short open tag is still just <?? (that last question mark is
punctuation  ;P)

--Kris


On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 7:44 PM, Adam Jon Richardson <adamjonr@gmail.com>wrote:

> 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
>

--f46d044304ecc1e61604ba8b33cb--