Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:76963
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.220.47 as permitted sender)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
In-Reply-To: <54016A45.1010900@sugarcrm.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2014 18:33:29 +0800
Cc: PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <CF7C2957-3487-4A31-8F27-FD33E545DFCF@gmail.com>
References: <CFFB1EB0-9A47-4F72-9E9D-28E2D2D5C447@gmail.com> <54016A45.1010900@sugarcrm.com>
To: Stanislav Malyshev <smalyshev@sugarcrm.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Loosening heredoc/nowdoc scanner
From: tjerk.meesters@gmail.com (Tjerk Meesters)

Hi Stas,

On 30 Aug, 2014, at 2:08 pm, Stas Malyshev <smalyshev@sugarcrm.com> =
wrote:

> Hi!
>=20
>> I would like to propose a few changes to our heredoc / nowdoc scanner =
to make it less awkward to use inside other constructs.
>>=20
>> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/heredoc-scanner-loosening
>>=20
>> Let me know your thoughts :)
>=20
> With this proposal, you will not be able to use the delimiter inside =
the
> text at the beginning of the line, which is a BC break and may be a
> problem for some code.

Yes, that=92s also mentioned in the RFC; although it would happen more =
easily when restrictions are completely removed, there=92s a slim chance =
it would happen with the limited set of valid terminators. That said, I =
would like to quote from the RFC itself:

[=85] it should be noted that the developer is in complete control of =
choosing the name for their enclosures; it's important to choose an =
enclosure that doesn't occur naturally inside the quotation.

> I'm not sure saving one variable assignment, at
> the expense of making scripts less readable and breaking BC, is really
> worth it. How often you need an array of heredocs or concatenate two
> heredocs?

There=92s no real objective measure with which I can answer such =
questions :)=20

The closest I could come to a rebuttal is if there=92s no real need to =
make the syntax so restrictive, why not make it less restrictive?

> How often it is a good idea, readability-wise?
>=20
> --=20
> Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect
> SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/