me too, i've asked for this before but i remember it being laughed away... ron
"Marcus Boerger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Hello Bastian, > > id like to see '<?php=' too. > > marcus > > Monday, November 28, 2005, 9:56:56 AM, you wrote: > > > What concerns me most is that <?php= does not work, regardless if short > > tags will be disabled or not in php6. I currently use <%= to counter > > this, but I am most certainly *not* happy with it. > > > So a clean <?php= solution would be ideal, so I wouldn't have to care > > about xml/xsl files parsed and neither about my templates growing too > > large because of php overhead. > > > Sara Golemon wrote: > >>> I recall this being discussed before, but not what came of it: is there > >>> a problem with just ignoring <?foo where foo is anything other than php > >>> or =? <?foo or <?bar or <?whatever is a parse error anyway so I very > >>> much doubt there's any BC break. Unless someone's program relies on > >>> parse errors. > >>> > >> The problem there becomes legacy support for: > >> > >> <?foo();?> > >> > >> And before you say "just watch for parens" there's also: > >> > >> <?foo::bar();?> > >> > >> and a much more insiduous example: > >> > >> <?die ?> > >> > >> no semicolon, no parens, no paamayim nekudotayim, nothing but a > >> perfectly valid looking PI tag. > >> > >> -Sara > > > > > Best regards, > Marcus -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
