> At 09:33 AM 11/15/2001 +0100, Stig S. Bakken wrote: > >Shane Caraveo wrote: > > > > > > Andi Gutmans wrote: > > > > > > > > Implementing this is not a problem but it seems that there is no > > consensus > > > > on adding it. > > > > I'm not sure what I think. I was very much against <?= but now it exists > > > > and is used by a lot of people it might be good to have <?php= but then > > > > again I can't make up my mind :) > > > > Andi > > > > > > When you cannot make up your mind, choose consistency. In this case, > > > like it or not, the consistent thing to do is add it. It's odd and > > > inconsistent to have <%=, <?=, but not <?php=. > > > >I was also against <?= originally, but now that we do have it I agree > >that consistency (symmetry?) is better. > > Now all that is left is to decide :) I think we're at a deadlock. > Who opposes this strongly?
I don't like it, but it is not strong opposition. To me it just doesn't read nicely at all: <?php=$a?> compare with: <?$php=$a?> or: <?php $php=$a?> <?=$a?> is maginally better because at least there is nothing to the left of the = sign to visually confuse matters. -Rasmus -- PHP Development Mailing List <http://www.php.net/> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
