Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:59534
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.212.182 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <4F83394B.90602@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2012 21:32:27 +0200
User-Agent: Thunderbird
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Luke Scott <luke@cywh.com>
CC: Tom Boutell <tom@punkave.com>, 
 PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
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> <CAORXhG+K3XML-47+FDYdL5D717wDX7c59Pz8KgqjcP16+Ad12w@mail.gmail.com> <-1399915171627175127@unknownmsgid>
In-Reply-To: <-1399915171627175127@unknownmsgid>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC: source files without opening tag
From: keisial@gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=C1ngel_Gonz=E1lez?=)

On 09/04/12 19:36, Luke Scott wrote:
> On Apr 9, 2012, at 10:23 AM, Tom Boutell <tom@punkave.com> wrote:
>> 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.
> Not really. Has nothing to do with auto loaders.
>
> require_code - A literal string? Is this eval?
>
> require_path - A directory?
>
> require_file - What kind of file?
A php file, of course :)


> You have to look at the keywords you're proposing and try to explain
> then without prior knowledge or documentation.
But if you come accross them you'd see something like:
require_code "setup.php";

Which is much more clear.

> These keywords are also ambiguous. require/include are well understood
> for including code not templates. Not just for PHP.
PHP has allowed to require HTML forever. Given it's php developers the main
target, it is not a huge argument that they may get confused by
require_file
doing what require has always done.

I admit require_code for a full HTML file* may be slightly odd, but
require_file
is completely aseptic about that.


* Which should instead have been loaded with readfile()...


> require_template on the other hand is clear and to the point. It's
> hard to make the same kind of assumptions as you can with the other
> keywords. And with those who know PHP it's readily apparent
> require_template could mean short tags whereas the other leave you
> scratching your head.
Except  that you're breaking compatibility by designing it the opposite way.
It may have been the perfect idea if we were designing PHP from scratch, but
we're not. This is a 17 years old language.