Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:60004
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: <CAL0xaBE19-1C78N-ks=Vd+CFyHFnM2xCdojJbDSCF301npy3XQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAEZPtU52Ayb6fnLSaZdQ+LHk1hEh3X1tJUO3NWUg3befgSAM1w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAGa2bXZ6W7=Pi+SP4b6c510bWbM9hEjq90_s63bBxbc9n9vsoQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAKOpQSxAd6sG8BHWn+dUUz4rAdChhUA+HXyJGpeoZ8GmJKRM0w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAL0xaBGSbBAw3XEwzNOxzoNoFAHDQVDFH9Zw7ju5VKNtA12UYA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAKOpQSyUHebUTi3zfSPkDvapuG902rHnz6Pi=yS5WUdEYMZqKQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAL0xaBE19-1C78N-ks=Vd+CFyHFnM2xCdojJbDSCF301npy3XQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 10:45:13 -0400
Message-ID: <CAORXhGKqK2=mWd2DmaXefhw5fpNkRVRAYuL=1JUn2-bfezBcBQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=KOI8-R
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)

For some this is sufficient, for others (like myself) getting rid of
the initial <?php for pure files is a primary motivation.

On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 9:38 AM, Arvids Godjuks
<arvids.godjuks@gmail.com> wrote:
> 16 =C1=D0=D2=C5=CC=D1 2012 =C7. 11:05 =D0=CF=CC=D8=DA=CF=D7=C1=D4=C5=CC=
=D8 Kris Craig <kris.craig@gmail.com>=CE=C1=D0=C9=D3=C1=CC:
>
>> Arvids,
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 12:46 AM, Arvids Godjuks <arvids.godjuks@gmail.c=
om
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> What happened with the proposal/RFC for expanding include/require with
>>> additional optional second param to allow for developers to define in p=
lace
>>> if he want's a pure PHP file to be included or a template file with dir=
ect
>>> HTML output?
>>> I like that proposal and take it over any other, because it gives
>>> developer a choice. And if things do not go the right way and he ends u=
p
>>> screwing up somewhere - he is able to fall back to the old mode just by
>>> modifying the include/require statement (and in a MVC framework with
>>> autoload usage that would be 1-2 places in the whole project).
>>> All that stuff with keywords, removing <?php tags and using special
>>> extensions require a continuous effort from the developers, additional
>>> support from the IDE/editors/other tools. Do we really need all that ju=
st
>>> to give people the ability to load their scripts as a pure PHP code?
>>> To my mind a modification to the include/require statements is all ther=
e
>>> is required to add that extra thing that Kris want's so badly and does =
not
>>> require to change your habbits, IDE templates, waiting for IDE/editors/=
WEB
>>> source code highlight libraries/source analyzers/etc to catch up with t=
he
>>> change.
>>> There is also a question I just raised that is not yet answered that th=
e
>>> keyword/extension thing can just break the valid performance tweak
>>> technique, that is used extensively in any project with big code base.
>>>
>>
>> That may very well be the method proposed in my RFC, too. =9AI haven't m=
ade
>> up my mind on that point as I'd like to cover the pros/cons a little mor=
e
>> in depth (including the potential perf issue you just raised). =9AA hand=
ler
>> approach or something similar will still be necessary as well, since one
>> key reason for my RFC was to make it so that these scripts could be
>> executed directly via the webserver. =9ABut as for determining how PHP i=
tself
>> can identify a .phpp file, I think the three best options are: =9ACreate=
 new
>> tags, create new keywords, or create new parameters to existing keywords=
.
>> =9AI keep bouncing back and forth on which one I think is best, which te=
lls
>> me that I need to hear more debate on that. =9AThoughts?
>>
>> --Kris
>>
>> I would encourage you to take a deep look into modifying the
> include/require statements, because for all the issues popped out with
> .pphp and keywords they just don't exist with include/require. And there =
is
> no need to remove the <?php tags in source files - just make sure they
> start first thing in the file and there is no ?> at the end and hey (for =
my
> case - my IDE removes all leading and trailing spaces on file save), your
> include 'file', PHP_SOURCE_ONLY; works fine, but including a template
> fails =9A(as does an image with embedded <?php ?> tags uploaded through a
> security hole) .
> It's clean (although some BC break would occur, but I think it's minor),
> simple and 100% voluntary. Any decently written 3rd party library will wo=
rk
> without any modification (well, removing trailing ?> is a matter of simpl=
e
> script if required, but I haven't seen people putting ?> in the end for
> years).



--=20
Tom Boutell
P'unk Avenue
215 755 1330
punkave.com
window.punkave.com