On 5/27/26 07:12, [email protected] wrote:
> Hi internals,
>
> I intend to submit an RFC introducing a new file extension for pure-code PHP
> source files (no leading <?php required) and would like to gather feedback
> before drafting.
>
> Proposal in brief:
>
> Files ending in .phpc would be parsed starting in ST_IN_SCRIPTING state. No <?
> php or ?> tags permitted inside such files. Existing .php files and their
> semantics are completely unchanged. This is purely additive and BC-clean.
>
> Motivation:
>
> PHP's mixed-mode default reflects its 1995 templating origins. Since PHP 7+, the
> language has evolved into a credible general-purpose tool: strict types, enums,
> readonly classes, property hooks, JIT compilation. I personally maintain
> PHPolygon, a CPU-bound 3D engine written in PHP – a use case where the
> templating heritage is pure ceremony. Other modern uses (CLI tooling, queue
> workers, code generators) share this pattern. A dedicated pure-code file format
> would be a small but meaningful acknowledgment that PHP-as-language is now a
> first-class use case alongside PHP-as-template.
>
> Prior art and what's different:
>
> I have read both rfc/source_files_without_opening_tag (Boutell, 2012, abandoned
> by author) and rfc/nophptags (Ohgaki, 2014, inactive). My proposal deliberately
> avoids what I believe were the two design choices that killed them:
>
> - No new include syntax (Boutell's AS keyword). Extension-based detection only.
> - No php.ini-based mode switch (Ohgaki's template_mode). No global config side
> effects.
> - No security framing. The mode-switch overhead is parse-time only and OPcache/
> JIT eliminate it in practice; this proposal is about conceptual clarity and
> tooling, not performance or LFI mitigation.
>
> Implementation:
>
> I will write and maintain the implementation patch. Initial scope: extension
> registration in zend_compile_file, lexer state initialization, OPcache
> awareness, CLI support, and rejection of <?php/?> tokens inside .phpc files. I
> will also coordinate with Composer maintainers ahead of RFC submission to
> confirm autoload support.
>
> Open questions for the list:
>
> 1. Is the .phpc extension acceptable as the disambiguator, or is there appetite
> for something else (e.g. shebang line, declare directive – both of which I think
> are worse, but I'd hear the case)?
> 2. Should #! shebang lines and UTF-8 BOM be permitted before the implicit
> scripting state begins? My intent is yes for both.
> 3. Should __halt_compiler() retain its current behavior in .phpc files? My
> intent is yes.
>
> I welcome substantive critique. If the concept itself is unwanted, I would
> rather know now than discover it during a vote.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Hendrik Mennen
> Maintainer, PHPolygon
>
The problem with assigning meaning to a file extension is that the
interpreter (currently) doesn't care what the file extension is. As long
as it's text, it'll process any file and execute what comes after any
<?php tags.
What you want is something like this:
php -r "$(cat foo.phpc)"
Of course, this only works for a single file, and the engine won't
execute code in any included files unless they contain PHP open tags, so
the file needs a way to tell the engine to parse and execute it as PHP
source.
At the risk of bike-shedding, I think it could be easy for others to
confuse .phpc files as byte-code files, since it's common to see Python
byte-code files with the .pyc extension. Also, a lot of folks in the
community use "phpc" as a shorthand and tag to mean "PHP community,"
though I'm not sure this is reason enough not to use the .phpc
extension. I don't have any better alternative recommendations at this
time, though.
Cheers,
Ben
Hi Ben,
Thanks for the quick response.
> The problem with assigning meaning to a file extension is that the
> interpreter (currently) doesn't care what the file extension is. As long
> as it's text, it'll process any file and execute what comes after any
> <?php tags.
Right, that is the current behavior, and changing it is exactly what the proposal is about. The engine would learn to check the file extension at the entry point (zend_compile_file for SAPI/CLI, and the include/require family for nested loads) and use that to set the initial lexer state. The .php behavior remains untouched.
That said, you point indirectly at something I do need to address: there are entry paths where the engine does not have a filename, or has one it should not trust. Off the top of my head:
- stdin (cat foo.phpc | php). No filename available. Options: require an explicit CLI flag (php --pure), or simply not support this path and document it.
- eval(). Operates on strings, not files. Extension is irrelevant here; eval() continues to require <?php as today.
- Phar archives. Internal entries have filenames, so dispatch by extension should work, but I would need to verify.
- include of a URL stream (rare, often disabled). Same question. Probably handled by extension on the URL path.
I will work these out explicitly in the RFC draft. Thanks for surfacing it.
> At the risk of bike-shedding, I think it could be easy for others to
> confuse .phpc files as byte-code files, since it's common to see Python
> byte-code files with the .pyc extension.
Fair point, and one I had not weighed heavily enough. The Python .pyc parallel is real and would cause exactly the kind of one-time confusion that adds friction to adoption. Boutell's 2012 RFC used .phpp (Pure PHP) for the same purpose, which avoids the bytecode association. I am open to .phpp or other suggestions; the disambiguator matters less than the mechanism.
> Also, a lot of folks in the community use "phpc" as a shorthand and tag
> to mean "PHP community," though I'm not sure this is reason enough not
> to use the .phpc extension.
Noted. Less critical than the .pyc concern in my view, but it does reinforce that .phpc is not the obviously-best choice. I will list candidate extensions in the RFC and explicitly invite the list to pick one rather than defending a specific letter.
Thanks again for the substantive feedback.
Hendrik Mennen
Maintainer, PHPolygon
