Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:59402
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.217.170 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4F8044C4.8050100@thelounge.net>
References: <CAORXhGLk8=bJ2TEo0OCzQCacjtGG=ZWYNuXf8Uu8oMNEm2WQ1A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAGU04mLu9pniaDw3jAOR7YiX6n3Bk7sMk7T1=4PAvG5QvAZNvw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAORXhGLq3ZyShNkqBsPwdabi6SkTqiE00jETiWeXK2T7Lm3gEQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<4F8044C4.8050100@thelounge.net>
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2012 14:48:28 +0100
Message-ID: <CAKxcST-Y7Bm73xRLbk8kGjJV24+VFxyvsXtk8s0hL2JxsE-BSg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Reindl Harald <h.reindl@thelounge.net>
Cc: internals@lists.php.net
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP class files without <?php at the top
From: dragoonis@gmail.com (Paul Dragoonis)

<?php is a simple and effective way to enter "php mode". File
extensions are really irrelevant.

This isn't a sensible idea.

On Sat, Apr 7, 2012 at 2:44 PM, Reindl Harald <h.reindl@thelounge.net> wrot=
e:
> you are not making valid points
> you are proposing DANGEROUS changes!
>
> what happens if PHP 5.4.x will follow your wishes
> (what never will happen) and your file without
> <?php will be called on a machine with a lower
> php-version?
>
> what you also do not realize is that the world is not turning
> around your windows machine - in the unix world extensions
> are meaningless - the sheabing and execute permissions are
> the only things controlling if a zexzfile is executeable
> and with which interpreter this happens
>
> and no the world is not turning around you or even around PHP
> this is how unix-systems and shells are working and there
> is no place for funny execptions in this world
>
>
> Am 07.04.2012 15:39, schrieb Tom Boutell:
>> From the viewpoint of someone writing reusable classes, the need to
>> start with <?php and reprimand anybody who accidentally puts a newline
>> above it is a silly annoyance they don't experience with other tools.
>>
>> That said, you are making valid points, I'm not convinced myself that
>> "file extensions" necessarily should or could be determined in every
>> context. But it seems the most viable way of addressing the issue - if
>> a viable way even exists. Partly I want to convince myself that this
>> either can or can't ever be improved, and move on either way (:
>>
>> On Sat, Apr 7, 2012 at 9:35 AM, Crocodile <crocodile2u@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hello, Tom...
>>>
>>> Are you seriously that bothered with '<?php' at the top of your classes=
? Are
>>> you serious when talking changing reguire/include behaviour just to sat=
isfy
>>> your wish?
>>>
>>> To be also serious, I would mention the possibility of including URLs. =
There
>>> is no such thing as file name extension in URLs. Thus your idea should =
be
>>> forgot. Personally, I really think 1st of April is like continuing in t=
he
>>> internals mailing list...
>>>
>>> 2012/4/7 Tom Boutell <tom@punkave.com>
>>>>
>>>> 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 m=
ode.
>>>>
>>>> * 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 ?>.
>>>>
>>>> * If a require/include statement sees a .phpc file extension, the
>>>> parser starts out in PHP mode.
>>>>
>>>> * If mod_php and FPM are able to see the path (I'm honestly not sure
>>>> if they can or not), they look for .phpc as their indication to start
>>>> out in PHP mode. If that's not possible then new options are defined
>>>> to allow Apache to be configured to tell mod_php and/or FPM to do the
>>>> right thing based on mime types etc.
>>>>
>>>> This way .php continues to behave exactly as it does today, and can
>>>> interoperate smoothly with code that uses .phpc. .phpc can require
>>>> .php and vice versa. They are friends.
>>>>
>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Tom Boutell
>>>> P'unk Avenue
>>>> 215 755 1330
>>>> punkave.com
>>>> window.punkave.com
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
>>>> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
>
> Mit besten Gr=FC=DFen, Reindl Harald
> the lounge interactive design GmbH
> A-1060 Vienna, Hofm=FChlgasse 17
> CTO / software-development / cms-solutions
> p: +43 (1) 595 3999 33, m: +43 (676) 40 221 40
> icq: 154546673, http://www.thelounge.net/
>
> http://www.thelounge.net/signature.asc.what.htm
>