Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:59519
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: <CAORXhGKjg_L11dFGNHNfNygDH018=ZhytAy1vH+Ei8QHfry=cA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAORXhGJwmbjw3Zze3+-oFA2Mb_Z-2owVESraNMMs57RzjRRMbA@mail.gmail.com>
	<-5877502932356715576@unknownmsgid>
	<CAORXhGLPdAie6UFq+daJhUmDUqp7RaFFLa596XdzdtuCddf0Jw@mail.gmail.com>
	<-3647345967307864634@unknownmsgid>
	<CAORXhGKjg_L11dFGNHNfNygDH018=ZhytAy1vH+Ei8QHfry=cA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2012 13:23:05 -0400
Message-ID: <CAORXhG+K3XML-47+FDYdL5D717wDX7c59Pz8KgqjcP16+Ad12w@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC: source files without opening tag
From: tom@punkave.com (Tom Boutell)

Also, your objection - that 'require_code' is confusing - would most
likely be an issue for a handful of people who write autoloaders.
Those clean PHP class files are almost always autoloaded.

On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 1:22 PM, Tom Boutell <tom@punkave.com> wrote:
> I see what you're saying, but you're proposing a new keyword to
> include code that does what plain old 'require' does now (assuming
> it's not a nice clean class file that is being included). Which means
> that valid code today is busted code once this feature comes out. That
> seems like a very hard sell.
>
> On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 1:10 PM, Luke Scott <luke@cywh.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 9, 2012, at 9:16 AM, Tom Boutell <tom@punkave.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 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'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that PHP code should be clearly
>> separated from template code. <?php should be optional at the start of
>> the file and IF a keyword should be added it should be for templates
>> and short-tags.
>>
>> 99% of modern PHP code is going to be classes that start with <?php
>> and omit the ending ?> (since PHP 5 due to how easy it is for white
>> space to end up on the tail end of a file). this is even the case with
>> procedural code.
>>
>> Half the PHP frameworks out there have their own template engine
>> because they can do a lot more than what short tags offer. Example:
>> Twig offers template inheritance.
>>
>> Introducing a keyword for PHP code without the <?php tag is
>> impractical. It makes much more sense to have a keyword for templates.
>>
>> For non-template code the starting <?php tag should always work as it
>> has before for backwards compatibility. The difference is you cannot
>> use ?> and text before the opening <?php tag is either ignored or
>> throws an error.
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> And those files can be included with something like require_template
>> or you can turn off the option in the ini file.
>>
>> The point is in EITHER MODE a php file that starts with <?php will
>> work as it did before. The new mode would just disallow you to break
>> out of PHP code with ?>.
>>
>>> 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'm not trying to kill anything. In fact what I'm proposing would be a
>> smooth transition to something that is already done. The difference is
>> at some point you won't be able to do this:
>>
>> <?php
>> class Object
>> {
>> =A0 =A0public function output()
>> =A0 =A0{
>> ?>
>> Print me!
>> <?php
>> =A0 =A0}
>> }
>>
>> I cringe every time I see this. There is no excuse since we have here/no=
wdocs.
>>
>> For people that use PHP as a template there can be other options. I'm
>> not totally against a new keyword, but I am against a new keyword for
>> including normal PHP code. It just doesn't make sense. No matter what
>> you name it (require_code, require_file, require_path) it's damned
>> confusing. If you did it the other way around its much clearer:
>> require_template.
>>
>> With require_template you're also free to expand template
>> functionality while keeping code clearly separated.
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> It's not as much as adding a keyword as it is what keyword you're adding=
.
>>
>> I hope the way I've explained things makes sense.
>>
>> Luke
>>
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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



--=20
Tom Boutell
P'unk Avenue
215 755 1330
punkave.com
window.punkave.com