Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:76973 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 54750 invoked from network); 30 Aug 2014 22:12:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 30 Aug 2014 22:12:52 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain sugarcrm.com designates 108.166.43.107 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 108.166.43.107 smtp107.ord1c.emailsrvr.com Linux 2.6 Received: from [108.166.43.107] ([108.166.43.107:58621] helo=smtp107.ord1c.emailsrvr.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id FF/70-50403-46C42045 for ; Sat, 30 Aug 2014 18:12:52 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp6.relay.ord1c.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 62D1880325; Sat, 30 Aug 2014 18:12:49 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: OK Received: by smtp6.relay.ord1c.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: smalyshev-AT-sugarcrm.com) with ESMTPSA id 0A48B8031C; Sat, 30 Aug 2014 18:12:48 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender-Id: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com Received: from Stass-MacBook-Pro.local (108-66-6-48.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [108.66.6.48]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA) by 0.0.0.0:465 (trex/5.2.10); Sat, 30 Aug 2014 22:12:49 GMT Message-ID: <54024C60.2040001@sugarcrm.com> Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2014 15:12:48 -0700 Organization: SugarCRM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tjerk Meesters CC: PHP Internals References: <54016A45.1010900@sugarcrm.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Loosening heredoc/nowdoc scanner From: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com (Stas Malyshev) Hi! > There’s no real objective measure with which I can answer such > questions :) > > The closest I could come to a rebuttal is if there’s no real need to > make the syntax so restrictive, why not make it less restrictive? "Why not" is usually not a very good reason for a change in the language syntax. There is, however, a reason why it is restrictive - so that there would be less chance for the end tag to collide with the actual text being heredoc'ed, and so that the end of the text would be clearly demarcated (since the text itself, being taken verbatim, can not be properly indented/delimited within the text). My belief is that the change have positive value of "changing something for the better minus changing something for the worse" and so far I'm not really convinced as of now that this change has it, especially given the BC break potential. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/