Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:60030
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.210.170 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAKOpQSz8eiJmnwWhunsEY_ZFuUYXQjcibZ-gvBe52v1-q3-GUw@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>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 01:55:53 +0300
Message-ID: <CAL0xaBEMkDmRgbtjjF+okS5pcMCE6=WwEDPgJ3i8vnFezAyYOQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kris Craig <kris.craig@gmail.com>
Cc: Rick WIdmer <vchkpw@developersdesk.com>, internals@lists.php.net
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d0447850fe214da04bdd3bafc
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Go for votes for the open tag-less PHP files
From: arvids.godjuks@gmail.com (Arvids Godjuks)

--f46d0447850fe214da04bdd3bafc
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

16 =D0=B0=D0=BF=D1=80=D0=B5=D0=BB=D1=8F 2012 =D0=B3. 22:02 =D0=BF=D0=BE=D0=
=BB=D1=8C=D0=B7=D0=BE=D0=B2=D0=B0=D1=82=D0=B5=D0=BB=D1=8C Kris Craig <kris.=
craig@gmail.com>=D0=BD=D0=B0=D0=BF=D0=B8=D1=81=D0=B0=D0=BB:

> On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 10:31 AM, Rick WIdmer <vchkpw@developersdesk.com
> >wrote:
>
> > On 4/16/2012 3:31 AM, Arvids Godjuks wrote:
> >
> >> That's sad really, to be honest.
> >> I wonder if people even use this:
> >>
> >>  echo include 'foo.bar', 'baz';
> >>>
> >>
> > Probably not,  Try it!  you get:
> >
> > 1baz
> >
> > It actually works more like
> >
> >   echo (include "foo.bar"), 'baz';
> >
> > than
> >
> >
> >   echo include( "foo.bar"), 'baz';
> >
> >
> >
> > More important include doesn't currently allow multiple parms:
> >
> >   include "foo.bar", 'baz';
> >
> > Parse error: syntax error, unexpected ',' in bla.php on line xx
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Rick
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
> >
> >
> I'll reiterate my position that I'm not ready to bring my RFC to a vote;
> and even if I was, the rules wouldn't allow it.  In fact, unless I'm
> mistaken, none of the RFCs have met the 2-week minimum requirement yet, s=
o
> no vote can take place at this time.  But I do think we're making progres=
s,
> so I would ask for a little extra patience from the peanut gallery for
> now.  =3D)
>
> To Arvids' point, I'm definitely leaning in that direction, but I'd like =
to
> hear a little bit more from anyone who believes a different approach woul=
d
> be better.  If nobody speaks-up, I'll just assume that we have consensus =
on
> that point and add it to the RFC.
>
> 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).  So if it does pose a change,
> I'd be surprised if any existing scripts would be affected.  And since th=
is
> is a major version increment we're talking about here, I think a small
> amount of allowance can be made for low-impact BC breakage IMHO.
>
> How about we just keep the parentheses optional and comma-seperate the
> arguments?  For example, the require syntax could look like this:
>
> require[(] $script_filename, $script_type =3D PHP_SCRIPT_TYPE_NORMAL [)];
>
> Possible values for $script_type:
>
> PHP_SCRIPT_TYPE_NORMAL (0x01)
>
>   - If the included file contains PHP code, parse it.
>
>
> PHP_SCRIPT_TYPE_TAGLESS (0x02)
>
>   - Code is assumed to be PHP throughout the script.  The <?php tag throw=
s
>   E_NOTICE and the ?> tag throws E_RECOVERABLE_ERROR.
>
>
> PHP_SCRIPT_TYPE_STACK (0x04)
>
>   - The $script_type is applied to all child scripts of the one being
>   included.
>   - Question : Would anyone see value in adding an override constant that=
,
>   while not recommended, allows the developer to apply a different
>   $script_type somewhere deeper in the stack?  Personally this doesn't
> sound
>   useful to me, but I'd be willing to put it in if enough of you wanted i=
t.
>
>
> PHP_SCRIPT_TYPE_CODE_FILE (PHP_SCRIPT_TYPE_NORMAL &
> PHP_SCRIPT_TYPE_TAGLESS)
>
>   - The entire script is assumed to be PHP code and is parsed accordingly=
.
>
>
> PHP_SCRIPT_TYPE_CODE_STACK (PHP_SCRIPT_TYPE_NORMAL &
> PHP_SCRIPT_TYPE_TAGLESS & PHP_SCRIPT_TYPE_STACK)
>
>   - The entire script and all its child scripts (i.e. its "stack") are
>   assumed to be PHP code and parsed accordingly.
>
>
> What do you think?
>
> --Kris
>

I think there is no need for that many constants and types of inclusion.
Just a PHP_SCRIPT_TYPE_NORMAL and PHP_SCRIPT_TYPE_CODE will suffice (the
later just expects the <?php at the very beginning of the file, like a
header, and no other ?> or <?=3D or <?php through the file). The KISS
principle still applies, and it should be kept that way. Too many options
and you end up with people abusing that on purpose with reasoning "Because
I can, f**k everybody else!" (it's a "pleasure" to work with such people).
I don't like the idea of removing the <?php tag at all, because it will
mess up the syntax highlighting everywhere and annoy people that copy the
plain code without the <?php and get it not recognized as a valid source
code.

--f46d0447850fe214da04bdd3bafc--