Tom,
On 4/9/12 3:17 PM, "Tom Boutell" <t...@punkave.com> wrote:
>My original goal was to stop typing <?php in pure code files. That
>includes at the top. I think it's entirely reasonable to achieve it
>with an option to the require keywords for this purpose and a naming
>convention to be followed by autoloaders. Keep in mind how rarely you
>have to change them. We're talking about code maintained by a
>relatively small number of very sharp developers. They can handle a
>few flags (:
>
>The prohibition of ?> still seems unnecessary and perhaps divisive,
>but if it were preferable to the majority to prohibit ?> in a pure
>code file, I could live with that as long as classic PHP files are
>also 100% supported and remain the default. I'm trying to craft a
>broadly acceptable compromise that still achieves the original goal of
>allowing people to write "just code" in a class file.
I think you can you achieve that by making "template mode" default and the
default changeable in the php.ini file.
Something like this:
/*
Code only, <?php at top optional, no ?>.
Text before opening <?php silently dropped
*/
require "/path/to/somefile.php", INCLUDE_CODE;
/*
Works exactly as it is now: <?php and ?> allowed.
Text betweeen ?>...<?php printed to output buffer.
*/
require "/path/to/anotherfile.php", INCLUDE_TEMPLATE; // As it is now
/*
By default INCLUDE_TEMPLATE
Can change default mode in php.ini to be INCLUDE_CODE if desired.
*/
require "/path/to/anotherfile.php"; // As it is now
Personally I would like to be able to do something like this in my auto
loader:
include $file, INCLUDE_CODE & INCLUDE_SILENT;
That way I can ensure pure code is being inserted and no warnings are
thrown if the file doesn't exist (class undefined will be thrown anyway).
I think it's important to make <?php optional at the top if you're using
existing or third party libraries that you can't modify. At least then
you'll be able to maintain backwards compatibility with most code written
since PHP 5.
(We don't need PHP_*. See the output of get_defined_constants() ).
I like where this is going! Hopefully after the RFC has been finalized
everyone else will agree.
>
>On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 6:06 PM, Kris Craig <kris.cr...@gmail.com> wrote:
Kris,
>>
>>
>> Bah, right! That damned <?xml tag....
>>
>> I already know what everyone's reaction will be, and it is probably a
>>REALLY
>> bad idea, but I feel obligated to at least mention it: Should we
>>consider
>> replacing "<?..." with something that doesn't conflict with anything,
>> perhaps starting in PHP 6? No need to get out the torches and
>>pitchforks,
>> everyone! As insane and problematic as that would be (i.e. BC break
>>with
>> roughly 1/3 of the internet lol), I felt as though the subject should at
>> least be broached. ;P
No need. Just keep it as <?php. It's already been well established. We
should ovoid overcomplicating it.
Luke
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
