Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:59965
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain punkave.com designates 209.85.213.170 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAEZPtU7z7Jf+nSDVFoL7Xdz4je6dSWFgh6HAcNUQuveDYf=LTA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAEZPtU52Ayb6fnLSaZdQ+LHk1hEh3X1tJUO3NWUg3befgSAM1w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAKOpQSw+r5iapJoHhXUH9rJHndh8DUsPJ2TQnt3QLb7FXF1tLg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEZPtU7z7Jf+nSDVFoL7Xdz4je6dSWFgh6HAcNUQuveDYf=LTA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2012 10:35:12 -0400
Message-ID: <CAORXhGKZL1rHpPxCsVY9kcpPcR1-L9BEmLkXqpE8rZwRUfgazw@mail.gmail.com>
To: PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Go for votes for the open tag-less PHP files
From: tom@punkave.com (Tom Boutell)

I don't think a consensus on the following points is likely to emerge
without voting on them individually. I propose carrying out a vote
with up to three questions to be answered depending on your response
to each. We could then proceed to discuss the (relatively boring but
essential) details of keywords and extensions, if any, and create a
final RFC.

Hopefully all parties can agree to be bound by the results of a vote
on these three questions and work together to create a final RFC that
abides by the result or let the matter drop.

Let's briefly discuss whether these questions truly represent the
major differences between the three RFCs (not the merits of those
positions please) and then, I hope, carry out a vote on them so we can
move on.

The Questions:

1. Whether a "pure code" mode in which <?php is not required at the
top of a file, and the <?php and ?> tags are not permitted at all in
such a file:

* Has merit and should be pursued (option 1a), or
* Should be dropped entirely (option 1b).

If your vote is for option 1a, please respond to the following
additional question:

2. Whether "pure code" mode should be:

* Toggled globally by a php.ini option such that <?php and ?> tags are
completely forbidden when this mode is active (option 2a), or
* Switched on by keywords and SAPI options that allow the sysadmin and
developer to make the choice at runtime, with the ability to make that
choice differently for different files or invocations, so that a mix
of "pure code" files and files that forbid <?php and ?> can exist
(option 2b).

3. If your vote is for option 2b, please respond to the following
additional question:

Whether "pure code" mode should:

* Forbid requiring a non-pure file from a pure file (option 3a), or
* Permit requiring non-pure files from pure files (option 3b).

I believe Kris Craig and Yasuo Ohgaki will find that these questions
accurately sum up our really significant unreconciled differences
(and, with the inclusion of question 1, the position of those who
don't want the feature at all).

These three questions deliberately don't address what the keywords or
file extensions or other mechanisms are called exactly, because I
believe those issues to be fairly simple to agree upon once we have
decided the basics.

On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 7:05 AM, Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com> wrote:
> hi,
>
> On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Kris Craig <kris.craig@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> =A0Perhaps a new list for RFC-specific discussions? =A0=3D)
>
> We don't need yet a new list. Sit down together and get over your
> differences and create the RFC or more if you can't get over your
> differences.
>
> Cheers,
> --
> Pierre
>
> @pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>



--=20
Tom Boutell
P'unk Avenue
215 755 1330
punkave.com
window.punkave.com