On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 8:44 AM, John LeSueur <john.lesu...@gmail.com>wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 7:21 AM, Jannik Zschiesche <he...@apfelbox.net > >wrote: > > > > > Am 15.04.2012 08:20, schrieb John LeSueur: > > > > Since you're looking for input, specifically on the compromise, let's > try > >> to figure out what's possible. The RFC proposes .phpp files that can > only > >> include other .phpp files. Others want .phpp files that can include .php > >> files. There are two ways I can think of to accomplish this. > >> > >> 1. an ini switch. This is a bad idea, because it causes code written > under > >> one setting to be impossible to use in the other setting. > >> 2. 3 file types.<?php,<?phpp,<?php~p (read:<?php almost pure) We'd need > >> something better than that last one, but what it means is that _this_ > file > >> is pure php, but it may include an embedded script somewhere. > >> > >> Between those two options, I would choose 2. Just to be clear, if I had > a > >> third choice, which was to make no change, it would be #3. > >> > >> The second thing that still needs nailing down as far as implementation > is > >> how to determine parsing mode. If it has to be specified at include > time, > >> then we're putting the burden on whoever writes the autoloader to know > >> what > >> kind of file it is. If it has to be specified in php.ini, or in the sapi > >> configuration, then I'm putting the burden on the administrator. I want > to > >> allow the developer who writes the file to specify its parsing mode. > >> > >> The two ways I see for developers to do so is to use variations on the > >> <?php header of the file, or by file extension. I prefer variations on > the > >> <?php header, because file extension still depends on configuration in > >> order to work, so involves admins in the decision of how to parse the > php > >> files that I write. > >> > >> <?php means just what it does now. > >> <?phpp means, disallow ?>, and error if there is anything before the > >> header. The RFC specifies an additional restriction, throw error if I > >> include file with<?php header. > >> <?phpo (open to suggestions for the text of this header) means disallow > >> ?>, > >> and error if there is anything before the header. > >> > >> John > >> > > > > Hi, > > > > I normally only read the discussions, instead of participate but I have a > > short question about #2: > > What is, if you mix the specified open tags? > > > > Look at this file: > > > > --- test.php > > <?php > > > > /* ...snip... */ > > > > ?> > > > > ...snip... > > > > <?phpp > > > > /* ...snip... */ > > --- EOF > > > > > > Would this error out? Would this be ignored? > > (not that this kind of file should be written like this, but > > theoretically, it is possible) > > > > Cheers, > > Jannik > > > > > > > This would error out. If anything appears before <?phpp, it's a parse > error. > Keep in mind that the RFC isn't actually proposing this new tag. We might go with a new inclusion keyword instead. If we had the .phpo type, regular .php files would in fact be includable from them, so it would not break. --Kris
