Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:60021
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.212.170 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAORXhG+M218=qiw5KGc9=7fqBNk1+i8uwt3v=UqPBKXFCT1w2g@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>
	<CAH-PCH7qjnwQk1kvOYg67tU-p+YSV8za6-k-56JYXiu1xSHHxQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAL0xaBHo0aTCBEM9YRbXs8nQAC5t5CnHEo=nBaGyNVVMfZ03MQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<4F8C577D.4010303@developersdesk.com>
	<CAKOpQSz8eiJmnwWhunsEY_ZFuUYXQjcibZ-gvBe52v1-q3-GUw@mail.gmail.com>
	<4F8C757C.1020400@developersdesk.com>
	<CAF+90c8nLnViURirnmrPY78rfrkbQQmf+JnZAevJYDjnp5G0aA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAKOpQSz_LU1H8MopOJuT1TJRo_W8yUTPOMuA311m=iDL6hr4SA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAORXhGJZ+FguTPXJ3hSz_Tn_xOHHVc3cpfUjhLVdfXHyrSP2Eg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAORXhG+M218=qiw5KGc9=7fqBNk1+i8uwt3v=UqPBKXFCT1w2g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 14:42:15 -0700
Message-ID: <CAKOpQSyoMuQ9Pf67hyBz6pNBCZKGtakLihA-TKHDERJ=1no-QA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tom Boutell <tom@punkave.com>
Cc: PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016e6d625741f621004bdd2b29a
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Go for votes for the open tag-less PHP files
From: kris.craig@gmail.com (Kris Craig)

--0016e6d625741f621004bdd2b29a
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Hey guys, can we move the RFC updates back to the threads for each RFC?
Subsequent discussion should go there as well.

--Kris


On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 2:30 PM, Tom Boutell <tom@punkave.com> wrote:

> This has been added in version 1.1.1 of the
> source_files_without_opening_tag RFC:
>
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/source_files_without_opening_tag
>
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 5:25 PM, Tom Boutell <tom@punkave.com> wrote:
> > I think the 'as' solution is smart.
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 3:54 PM, Kris Craig <kris.craig@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 12:51 PM, Nikita Popov <
> nikita.ppv@googlemail.com>wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 9:39 PM, Rick WIdmer <
> vchkpw@developersdesk.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>> > On 4/16/2012 1:02 PM, Kris Craig wrote:
> >>> >>
> >>> >> On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 10:31 AM, Rick
> >>> >> WIdmer<vchkpw@developersdesk.com>wrote:
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> More important include doesn't currently allow multiple parms:
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>>   include "foo.bar", 'baz';
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> Parse error: syntax error, unexpected ',' in bla.php on line xx
> >>> >> Regarding include/require, I agree that any BC break would be
> extremely
> >>> >> minimal.  In the 10+ years I've been developing PHP, I don't think
> I've
> >>> >> ever once seen somebody include multiple scripts on a single line (I
> >>> >> wasn't even aware that such a thing was allowed).
> >>> > See above.  It is not allowed now.
> >>>
> >>> I think there is a misunderstanding here. Inclusions with two
> >>> arguments are currently not allowed, yes. The point is that adding
> >>> such a second argument would make the grammar ambiguous.
> >>>
> >>> E.g, consider this:
> >>>
> >>> func(include 'foo', $someThing);
> >>>
> >>> Currently this is interpreted as the return value of 'foo' and the
> >>> variable $someThing being passed to func.
> >>>
> >>> If you add a second argument it's unclear what this does. Is this a
> >>> two-argument include? I.e. should it be interpreted as
> >>>
> >>> func((include 'foo', $someThing));
> >>>
> >>> Or is this a one-argument include and should be interpreted as
> >>>
> >>> func((include 'foo'), $someThing);
> >>>
> >>> In my eyes such an ambiguity renders any proposal to add another
> >>> argument to include completely unacceptable.
> >>>
> >>> The only option is to add a dedicated syntax for it like
> >>>
> >>> include 'foo' as $flags;
> >>>
> >>> Nikita
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> >>> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Hmm I like that idea.  Anyone see any downsides to using "as" instead of
> >> comma delination?
> >>
> >> --Kris
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Tom Boutell
> > P'unk Avenue
> > 215 755 1330
> > punkave.com
> > window.punkave.com
>
>
>
> --
> Tom Boutell
> P'unk Avenue
> 215 755 1330
> punkave.com
> window.punkave.com
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>

--0016e6d625741f621004bdd2b29a--