Edit report at https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=61182&edit=1
ID: 61182
Comment by: dmittner at llnw dot com
Reported by: tom at tomwardrop dot com
Summary: Assume Opening PHP Tag
Status: Wont fix
Type: Feature/Change Request
Package: *Configuration Issues
PHP Version: 5.4.0RC8
Block user comment: N
Private report: N
New Comment:
I have to agree with the sentiment.
Standard convention seems to be to exclude the close tag on PHP-only files, but
I find it fundamentally flawed and improper syntax to have an unclosed tag. I
just can't look at a PHP file with it excluded and see it as "clean".
That said, I'd support an initiative to change the nature of the open tag--
either through its removal or changing it to something else identifiable as a
PHP "starter" that's clearly not an opening tag.
I also find it completely viable for this to be a server-level option, or
something that can be toggled through Apache on a per-vhost basis.
There's a few logical paths I can think of:
1. If the file's extension is .php then ASSUME it's pure PHP, but if there's a "
<?php" tag anywhere in it, fall back to the current assumption of it being a
mixed file. This should help ensure backwards compatibility and might not even
need to be a configuration change.
2. This one being a configuration change, assume all .php files are pure PHP,
assume all .phtml files are mixtures.
3. Support "<?php?>" (or something else) as a first-line identifier of a pure
PHP file
There are plenty of ways to evolve "<?php" for pure PHP files. Some that can
work in parallel to today's conventions, some that are more abrasive.
In the meantime, I just don't want to be condemned for closing my tags, which
has been a discipline encouraged (if not enforced) for many years. Frankly it
absolutely amazes me that so many people are suddenly alright going against
that
simple principle. So much for consistency...
Previous Comments:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[2012-02-28 10:46:06] johan...@php.net
There are still people who mix PHP and HTML code and that is still valid. Yes,
this change would save typing 6 characters (<?php + new line) per file but
cause lot's of compatibility and related issues which isn't really worth it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[2012-02-26 01:58:56] tom at tomwardrop dot com
I do agree with you, hence my last comment. Adding optional open tags alone
would be more hassle than it's worth, you're right. However, if PHP was to
provide more than just optional open tags, like some of the application-
orientated features I've mentioned, then the hassle would probably be worth it.
Of course, this goes beyond the scope of this feature request, but it would
make
for an interesting discussion none-the-less. PHP is overdue to receive some
kind
of application persistance so code isn't re-parsed and re-initialized after
every request.
I'm happy for this ticket to be closed, though I would love to see more thought
put into evolving PHP beyond its current template-orientated form, which lately
seems to work against developers more than it helps them.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[2012-02-26 01:47:05] phpmpan at mpan dot pl
Note: I'm NOT against the idea itself. I'm just thinking that in the current
form it can do more harm than good.
What you're asking for is redefining the whole PHP world. Let's imagine that
PHP6 includes your idea and it's *not* optional. What happens?
1. Many of PHP books become obsolete
We all know mixing code and output is bad, but the books
take this approach because it's simpler. It allows authors
to show the basic ideas of PHP without requiring the reader
to download/install third party template engine.
But if .php files are no longer templates, books need
to be rewritten. Lots of money for authors, but I think
it's not dev's goal.
2. Lots of currently used code becomes obsolete
If one needs to write code for a server that has
this feature enabled, any template-like code should
be avoided. This means we can use only "safe" libraries.
Which are "safe"? Only those for which the author states
they're compatible with `assume_open_tags`.
In other words: less code for us to use. Many things needs
to be rewritten. This is bad.
3. Admins will simply refuse to enable the feature
I love the idea of removing magic_quotes. At the same time
I believe many admins will hesitate to upgrade to PHP6,
because they have irrational belief that the magic_quotes
feature was protecting them.
Now imagine what will they do with `assume_open_tags`.
Will they enable it? Will they risk breaking already
deployed applications? I don't think so. If they're afraid
to leave their servers without magic_quote "protection",
they'll be even more scared of the fact that they can beak
something seriously by enabling `assume_open_tags`.
Setting `assume_open_tags` on per-directory basis (for example
with .htaccess in Apache) doesn't solve the problem, because
PHP libraries may be shared between multiple applications.
I believe that books should be rewritten, real template engines should be used,
we should update our code et cetera. But real life is real life. Encountering
pieces of software that were not upgraded for 20-30 years is not an uncommon
thing ("20-30yrs" does not apply to PHP, but I know apps that were not updated
since PHP4). `magic_quotes` are deprecated for years and many people seen
they're bad even earlier. There was enough time to update applications that
depends on them. And even if some code is not fixed, removing magic_quotes
doesn't make it stop working. The case of `assume_open_tags` is different. If
it's optional, it needs to become a standard to be accepted. And this should be
done quickly. I can't imagine building separate versions of libraries for
server with this feature enabled and without it. Authors will simply keep using
versions with "<?php" to maintain compatibility and the proposed feature will
stay unused.
OTOH forcing it to be enabled will cause problems mentioned above. This is a
lose-lose situation.
IMHO this may work only if the author of the code decides which mode to use.
This makes the feature really optional. It may be included in the server
without breaking any existing code and be enabled if new code requies it. This
way the feature may be introduced gradually. Evolution, not revolution.
The question is: how to enable authors to tell that their code assumes that
opening tags are open?
The first idea was to add some metainfo to a PHAR.
The second, based on your last post, is to add an optional argument to
include*/require* constructs. In such case the following code would cause
included file to be parsed as a raw PHP source, not requiring additional
"<?php".
require_once some_magic 'ns1/ns2/Example.class.php'
There still needs to be a file with "<?php" at the begining to use this code.
However currently the trend is to use a single dispatcher, so it's not a big
deal.
Still I'm not sure if the feature is really worth being implemented.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[2012-02-26 00:12:45] tom at tomwardrop dot com
It's not just about the extra characters, but like the end ?> tag (which
thankfully is optional), any white-space or otherwise non-printable characters
before the opening tag can cause "headers sent" issues. You could solve that
problem by implementing the ignore white-space rule I've already mentioned,
where any white-space before the opening tag is ignored.
The more I think about this and talk to the others, the more it becomes
apparent
that what I'm actually asking for, is a distinction to made between PHP
templates, and PHP scripts/applications. If PHP were to define these two
distinct concepts, then you could do more than just make the opening tag
optional. For example, you could have a template() or render() method to act as
an include() for php templates. Unlike include() however, this render() method
would return the output of the file, instead of sending it straight to the
browser. This would negate the need to capture template output using the output
buffer functions (something that I believe most frameworks end up using).
Making such a distinction would also allow web servers like Apache to treat PHP
files differently. You may create a rule in Apache to render all .phpt files as
PHP templates, rendering everything else as PHP script or application files. We
may then see mod_php implement an application mode, where one can define a
single-point of entry into their application. This could have flow-on
performance benefits, where mod_php could cache the parsed PHP, then either
fork
it on each request, or instantiate a new application class. Such a feature
would
mean frameworks wouldn't have to stuff around with .htaccess files, and would
mean that programmers don't need to add the following to the top of all their
files: if (defined('SOME_CONSTANT')) exit;
While there's momentum among the PHP developers to move forward with
modernising
the language, I think now would be a good idea to consider some of these more
fundamental changes. PHP's built-in template engine, ease of deployment, and
it's dynamic, traditional OO constructs would still remain PHP's strengths.
With all this said, I'd be happy to save such changes to a major release
intended to break legacy code, like PHP 6. I'd like to keep in mind too that
code portability isn't relevant to most people who don't intend to release
their
code as open source. Typically, those people using PHP in a business context
have control of their server. It's only shared hosting environments where
portability becomes a potential issue. All I'm saying is don't rule out ideas
based on the lowest common denominator.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[2012-02-25 14:12:03] phpmpan at mpan dot pl
After a bit of thinking I came to a conclusion that PHARs can, in theory, have
such thing implemented. Some metadata may be included in PHAR to tell PHP that
every source file in the archive assumes "<?php" tag to be open. Since such
information is included by the author of the code, nothing can be broken.
However I don't know if it's worth being implemented. As I said before, it
gives almost nothing. Five characters is not much if one have to put dozen
lines at the begining of each file. Also PHARs, that assume opening tag to be
open, should be incompatible with older versions of PHP to prevent sending
source code to the client by accident. Too much trouble IMO.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The remainder of the comments for this report are too long. To view
the rest of the comments, please view the bug report online at
https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=61182
--
Edit this bug report at https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=61182&edit=1
