Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:59397
Return-Path: <addw@phcomp.co.uk>
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net
Received: (qmail 92428 invoked from network); 7 Apr 2012 13:32:04 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1)
  by localhost with SMTP; 7 Apr 2012 13:32:04 -0000
Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=addw@phcomp.co.uk; sender-id=permerror
Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=addw@phcomp.co.uk; spf=pass; sender-id=pass
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain phcomp.co.uk designates 78.32.209.33 as permitted sender)
X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: addw@phcomp.co.uk
X-Host-Fingerprint: 78.32.209.33 freshmint.phcomp.co.uk Linux 2.6
Received: from [78.32.209.33] ([78.32.209.33:63936] helo=mint.phcomp.co.uk)
	by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP
	id 56/B0-23111-3D1408F4 for <internals@lists.php.net>; Sat, 07 Apr 2012 09:32:04 -0400
Received: from addw by mint.phcomp.co.uk with local (Exim 4.63)
	(envelope-from <addw@phcomp.co.uk>)
	id 1SGVkG-0007qc-DR; Sat, 07 Apr 2012 14:32:00 +0100
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2012 14:32:00 +0100
To: Tom Boutell <tom@punkave.com>
Cc: PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Message-ID: <20120407133200.GN21004@phcomp.co.uk>
Mail-Followup-To: Tom Boutell <tom@punkave.com>,
	PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
References: <CAORXhGLk8=bJ2TEo0OCzQCacjtGG=ZWYNuXf8Uu8oMNEm2WQ1A@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAORXhGLk8=bJ2TEo0OCzQCacjtGG=ZWYNuXf8Uu8oMNEm2WQ1A@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i
Organization: Parliament Hill Computers Ltd
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP class files without <?php at the top
From: addw@phcomp.co.uk (Alain Williams)

On Sat, Apr 07, 2012 at 09:26:01AM -0400, Tom Boutell wrote:
> Now that the flamewar has died down a little I'd like to try to have a
> civil discussion about this idea - *without* my admittedly
> inflammatory suggestion to kill <?php altogether.
> 
> So here is what I am seriously suggesting:
> 
> * The default behavior doesn't change. The parser starts out in HTML mode.
> 
> * If the CLI sees a .phpc file extension, the parser starts out in PHP
> mode (no opening <?php is required). It is still possible to shift
> into HTML mode after that with ?>.

Why ? What is the benefit ? You don't have to put <?php at the start of a php
file, so you save a few bytes...

Today PHP does not look at file extensions - so why change that behaviour ?
Extra complication with no real benefit.

Thanks for the idea - but no thanks.

> -- 
> Tom Boutell
> P'unk Avenue
> 215 755 1330

What country would that be ? On a list like this numbers should start +

-- 
Alain Williams
Linux/GNU Consultant - Mail systems, Web sites, Networking, Programmer, IT Lecturer.
+44 (0) 787 668 0256  http://www.phcomp.co.uk/
Parliament Hill Computers Ltd. Registration Information: http://www.phcomp.co.uk/contact.php
#include <std_disclaimer.h>