Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:59564
Return-Path: <luke@cywh.com>
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net
Received: (qmail 6306 invoked from network); 9 Apr 2012 21:38:21 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1)
  by localhost with SMTP; 9 Apr 2012 21:38:21 -0000
Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=luke@cywh.com; sender-id=unknown
Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=luke@cywh.com; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain cywh.com from 209.85.220.170 cause and error)
X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: luke@cywh.com
X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.220.170 mail-vx0-f170.google.com  
Received: from [209.85.220.170] ([209.85.220.170:41480] helo=mail-vx0-f170.google.com)
	by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP
	id 82/CF-34074-CC6538F4 for <internals@lists.php.net>; Mon, 09 Apr 2012 17:38:21 -0400
Received: by vcbfo14 with SMTP id fo14so2484752vcb.29
        for <internals@lists.php.net>; Mon, 09 Apr 2012 14:38:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=google.com; s=20120113;
        h=references:from:in-reply-to:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:to
         :cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state;
        bh=fFMxuBTK3S2ARCM2QxxFDaJcDGf+UVgoHM6iO/zjEoM=;
        b=Iiq28dmr+YiC+jtuIbAMEJzCWfxD6blqi7DvExzAaRWrYiC7a4XKakARzqv2s0WjWb
         rNKHtC0Z5otVh+4Pr4hxzma8w2mT4u8ILdMQy6SG6eKRS6SVwVq6MlfIwtNg0L3coZuC
         6rWHQT8nlKvS+i4tzmfDqhS0acFGmZIIhFSAWH3wgQ7iMZXiaH2pEYZFeuY38PnN5XNP
         UhtOBbTeLs5ZpHAs/BaoHqcULB4vjJDBkAI9KM1upH/5Fu0N9BgW+BZc/xcazwvlKHlu
         Ipm7i22RrqAk8SQvIvR8dz3XnX3SZO9VelFFABtj6mOuN6ByXTk++jNG0ix/sY5jO7yH
         ME8w==
Received: by 10.220.31.3 with SMTP id w3mr4427487vcc.21.1334007497955; Mon, 09
 Apr 2012 14:38:17 -0700 (PDT)
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>
 <4F831FAE.2030208@ralphschindler.com> <4775322189440202047@unknownmsgid>
 <CAORXhGJSG6CJD5EAt_uZ7RjfjM345nfrVQz8t2ep4e3WhCeKMQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <4F833682.2000301@ralphschindler.com> <CAGa2bXYjJsfo6os_P1OvQ7jfmxeYUkZ+QK5r94nwNUsba-iWLA@mail.gmail.com>
 <4F833AB0.2060306@sugarcrm.com> <CAGa2bXa4U3ar2REYahyt_0pJH=mjNjvHUhmHpxL+Qkdy3tUZFQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <4F8340E6.90005@sugarcrm.com> <CAGa2bXY0fXX_SSYtsdw2xVqE=V6t+8B_-daPo5YrRd6E_HuPfQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKOpQSz2oTBCdgxsCBoeDUJaG=hA9Hx-S6jMJ7rtqcn1hbEnAw@mail.gmail.com>
 <4F834D82.4030601@developersdesk.com> <CAORXhGKQAMgpyLpTtCTCSNfELf73GXaFtzEtymjLCfRjEW5WWg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKOpQSwjakOpuWcauHMNZbSPu6JuFN-9DL5aD6JBKWknQ1KTQg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKOpQSwjakOpuWcauHMNZbSPu6JuFN-9DL5aD6JBKWknQ1KTQg@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2012 14:38:15 -0700
Message-ID: <-4280157191882548448@unknownmsgid>
To: Kris Craig <kris.craig@gmail.com>
Cc: Tom Boutell <tom@punkave.com>, PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkkMVpGRQCVwzzTZAg2N9tNCTHyt7/qZ+1X6YbZxDUmZr0pa9xYN73a2yoLSdDyeN+lKrcG
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC: source files without opening tag
From: luke@cywh.com (Luke Scott)

> Obviously, it would need to be at the top of the PHP file (whitespace
> notwithstanding).  Since we don't want any BC breaks, we at very least need
> it to start with "<?" so that we don't end up parsing anything that wasn't
> mean to be parsed.  So how about we keep it simple and just use a single,
> "<?phpp" at the beginning of the file?  No ?> would be allowed after that.
> Anything before that (in the file itself) would also be ignored and throw a
> warning.

Remember, <?xml tags. I think <? By itself was deprecated for this reason.

> This sounds like the best approach, given the limitations involved with
> webserver configurations.  I'm still very much against though allowing ?>
> within one of these files (included or otherwise), as it really defeats the
> whole purpose and would just encourage poor architecture without any
> countervailing benefit.

Agreed. Disallowing ?> in a file in pure code means only one <?php tag
at the top.

A flag on require/include is acceptable to me, as long as the default
mode is configurable in the php.ini file (when none are specified).

Luke

>
> --Kris