Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:59515
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain punkave.com designates 209.85.217.170 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <-5877502932356715576@unknownmsgid>
References: <CAORXhGJwmbjw3Zze3+-oFA2Mb_Z-2owVESraNMMs57RzjRRMbA@mail.gmail.com>
	<-5877502932356715576@unknownmsgid>
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2012 12:16:18 -0400
Message-ID: <CAORXhGLPdAie6UFq+daJhUmDUqp7RaFFLa596XdzdtuCddf0Jw@mail.gmail.com>
To: PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC: source files without opening tag
From: tom@punkave.com (Tom Boutell)

It sounds like you are proposing to gradually kill the use of PHP for
templating entirely, which I don't think is something people would
vote for. I sometimes use perfectly good older frameworks that do use
.php files for templating in a reasonable way, and I'm one of the
advocates for migrating away from starting everything with <?php. I
would have to vote against it myself. There's no reason to kill good
code that passes its tests just because it uses inline HTML. I won't
even know I have that code in my project from some third party library
until I find out the hard way. No, just no. (:

I did propose one new keyword, but by proposing one keyword with a
future-friendly syntax instead of four new keywords I'm attempting to
help with the pollution problem.

On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 11:43 AM, Luke Scott <luke@cywh.com> wrote:
> Tom,
>
> As I've said before I don't think new keywords are the answer. They
> will just pollute the language even further.
>
> I also don't think an ini setting is a bad thing either. It is often
> used in PHP as a way to transition from way of doing things to
> another. First you introduce it with it being off by default, then on
> by default, then deprecate the old behavior. It's quite normal in
> PHP's history.
>
> In another email someone mentioned doing two rfcs. In both cases are
> we talking about removing <?php ? Because it's become somewhat
> confusing to keep track of what is being talked about. If that is the
> case, continue reading.
>
> I would prefer the starting <?php tag be optional rather than removed.
> Just explicitly forbid the ending ?> tag and treat text before the
> opening <?php tag differently. Perhaps ignore it (rather than print)
> or throw an error.
>
> That is at least how I would prefer the "code" mode as most
> non-template files only start with <?php. It allows for backwards
> compatibility.
>
> If you must add keywords it should be something like require_template
> NOT require_code/require_file. Templates are the exception, not the
> norm.
>
> Luke Scott
>
> On Apr 8, 2012, at 9:32 AM, Tom Boutell <tom@punkave.com> wrote:
>
>> I have written an RFC proposing backwards-compatible support for
>> source files without an opening <?php tag:
>>
>> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/source_files_without_opening_tag
>>
>> This RFC is not yet listed at https://wiki.php.net/rfc. I am not sure
>> what the requirements are to get it added to the "Under Discussion"
>> session and get the ball rolling formally. Please enlighten and I'll
>> do whatever is required.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> --
>> 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
>>



-- 
Tom Boutell
P'unk Avenue
215 755 1330
punkave.com
window.punkave.com