Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:59571
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: <CAKOpQSzj6X=0+mejtgC+nqYQ2QvtWzrPA3D6z0Kebthwz8hT=g@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>
	<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>
	<-4280157191882548448@unknownmsgid>
	<CAKOpQSzj6X=0+mejtgC+nqYQ2QvtWzrPA3D6z0Kebthwz8hT=g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2012 18:17:51 -0400
Message-ID: <CAORXhGJzRLxprt36Du32b_cB=WJ872WE_CQezfAxza=4MEm7=Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kris Craig <kris.craig@gmail.com>
Cc: Luke Scott <luke@cywh.com>, 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)

My original goal was to stop typing <?php in pure code files. That
includes at the top. I think it's entirely reasonable to achieve it
with an option to the require keywords for this purpose and a naming
convention to be followed by autoloaders. Keep in mind how rarely you
have to change them. We're talking about code maintained by a
relatively small number of very sharp developers. They can handle a
few flags (:

The prohibition of ?> still seems unnecessary and perhaps divisive,
but if it were preferable to the majority to prohibit ?> in a pure
code file, I could live with that as long as classic PHP files are
also 100% supported and remain the default. I'm trying to craft a
broadly acceptable compromise that still achieves the original goal of
allowing people to write "just code" in a class file.

On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 6:06 PM, Kris Craig <kris.craig@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 2:38 PM, Luke Scott <luke@cywh.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Obviously, it would need to be at the top of the PHP file (whitespace
>> > notwithstanding). =A0Since we don't want any BC breaks, we at very lea=
st
>> > need
>> > it to start with "<?" so that we don't end up parsing anything that
>> > wasn't
>> > mean to be parsed. =A0So how about we keep it simple and just use a
>> > single,
>> > "<?phpp" at the beginning of the file? =A0No ?> 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 reaso=
n.
>
>
> Bah, right!=A0 That damned <?xml tag....
>
> I already know what everyone's reaction will be, and it is probably a REA=
LLY
> bad idea, but I feel obligated to at least mention it:=A0 Should we consi=
der
> replacing "<?..." with something that doesn't conflict with anything,
> perhaps starting in PHP 6?=A0 No need to get out the torches and pitchfor=
ks,
> everyone!=A0 As insane and problematic as that would be (i.e. BC break wi=
th
> roughly 1/3 of the internet lol), I felt as though the subject should at
> least be broached.=A0 ;P
>
>>
>>
>> > This sounds like the best approach, given the limitations involved wit=
h
>> > webserver configurations. =A0I'm still very much against though allowi=
ng
>> > ?>
>> > within one of these files (included or otherwise), as it really defeat=
s
>> > 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).
>
>
> Perhaps we should split that into a separate RFC?=A0 I.e. a require flag =
that
> tells it to parse the included PHP file as pure PHP, regardless of whethe=
r
> or not it has the <?phpp tag.=A0 I'm not sure if this would be
> workable/necessary or not, but it's different enough that I think splitti=
ng
> it off into a separate proposal would probably make the most sense.
>
>>
>>
>> Luke
>>
>> >
>> > --Kris
>
>



--=20
Tom Boutell
P'unk Avenue
215 755 1330
punkave.com
window.punkave.com