> If, as you imply, '<?=' and '<%=' are such a horrible "disease" that their > very existance is proof that '<?php=' would be a syntactic travesty. Why > were they allowed in the first place? If they were implemented "due to > popular demand", why is popular demand not sufficient for '<?php='?
I think the argument was that <?php was ment to be the standard (and therefore clean way) while <? And <% is for the short hand freaks :-) Remember that one of the huge advantages of php is code readability. If you want short hand you can either use stuff like <% or move over to perl. As an aside: what do you do most? Write or read/maintain code? Then think again about short hand stuff. So Rasmus's argument seems quite sound in my eyes. Best regards, Lukas Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________ DybNet Internet Solutions GbR Reuchlinstr. 10-11 Gebäude 4 1.OG Raum 6 (4.1.6) 10553 Berlin Germany Tel. : +49 30 83 22 50 00 Fax : +49 30 83 22 50 07 www.dybnet.de [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________ > -----Original Message----- > From: Brinkman, Theodore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 6:37 PM > To: 'PHP Developers Mailing List' > Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] <?= and <%= both work, why not <?php= > > Ok. #1 is the first logical, technical reason I've seen against the > shorthand being fully implemented (though it begs the question why it was > partially implemented in the first place). > > I'm not to knowledgeable about SGML specifics (and I can't afford to spend > $200+ for a copy of the spec so I can spend a few weeks learning it just > for > this), so I can't go into that, but extending this to XML is a falacy, > because PHP comparison syntax breaks the XML spec. I'm pretty sure that > <% > echo $var %> (valid PHP) would cause most XML parsers to choke. > > As for #2 there's no flaw with the logic until you assume that '<?php echo > ' > is somehow inherently more readable than '<?php= '. That's a matter of > opinion either way. > > By the time you get to #3, however, you've resorted to dreaming up new > unrequested language extensions, and references to 'magic' to support your > argument. I, and others, would argue that '<?php=' is no more 'magic' > than > '<?php echo'. We know what it means. > > > If you really do want some equivalent to your proposed '<?php~ $foo:$bar > ?>', then I might suggest '<?php= isset($foo)?$foo:$bar ?>', which I > believe > would already work as '<?php echo isset($foo)?$foo:$bar ?>', '<?= > isset($foo)?$foo:$bar ?>'. > > - Theo > > -----Original Message----- > From: Rasmus Lerdorf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 10:42 AM > To: Sam Liddicott > Cc: Brinkman, Theodore; 'PHP Developers Mailing List' > Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] <?= and <%= both work, why not <?php= > > > Guys, this argument has been killed many times. Please stop. The reasons > it won't change: > > 1. <?php is the SGML-compliant PI tag-style that is supposed to play > nice with other technologies. <?php= would completely break that as > the SGML spec (and the XML spec) says to use <?php<whitespace> so it > would have to be <?php =$foo?> which is even uglier and would cause a > bit of trouble at the parser level. > > 2. The only reason for using <?php =$foo?> is to save a few keystrokes. > We have short_tags and asp_tags for example that reason. These are > the non-compliant tag style that people have been taught are ok for > local code, but shouldn't be used for distributed code. Therefore > if you really do want to save keystrokes, which I am all for, use > <?=$foo?> or <%=$foo%> and you are happy. If you ever need to > distribute your code, write a 30-second sed script that changes these > to <?php echo $foo?> for you. That way local hacks/shortcuts stay > local, but the distributed code is proper and readable and people > won't be wondering what the heck this = thing is. > > 3. The whole concept of =$var sucks. Magic tokens with no visible meaning > is against the spirit of PHP. Yes, it has snuck in due to popular > demand, but I see no reason to help the disease spread any further and > give people precedence for then wanting stuff like ~$foo:$bar which > might echo $foo if it is non-empty, $bar otherwise. A useful operation > to be sure, but we don't want a language that looks like > <?php~SID:"new user"?> blah blah <?php=$user_name?> > It goes back to the old concept of keeping things readable. Figuring > out what = and ~ do in this particular context is difficult. You can't > just look them up in the index of a PHP book because first of all they > are single-character common tokens, but worse, they are modal tokens. > > -Rasmus > > On Fri, 26 Apr 2002, Sam Liddicott wrote: > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Brinkman, Theodore > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: 26 April 2002 14:55 > > > To: 'PHP Developers Mailing List' > > > Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] <?= and <%= both work, why not <?php= > > > > > > > > > Sure, and its only an extra 4 character, really. But that's > > > not the issue > > > at hand. The issue at hand is that the inconsistency of > > > supporting <?= and > > > <%= but not <?php= encourages quite a few people to use the > > > 'optional' short > > > form tags, meaning that their code isn't portable. > > > > I guy here who till recently poo-poo'd asp tags is now using them > because > > <%=$VAR;%> is emminently more readable than the alternative. > > > > > For each person who says <?php= $variable ?> is hard to read > > > at least one > > > other person says they find <?php echo $variable ?> harder to read. I > > > personally find the first easier to read when it is embedded > > > in the middle > > > of a long line of HTML (like an input tag for example). > > > > Yep. > > > > > What possible harm comes from improving the internal > > > consistency of the > > > language? Why is a two-line patch that would completely remove an > > > inconsistency so bitterly fought against? > > > > To emphasise; people here are adopting bad-old short tags in order to > keep > > readability of code. It makes it easy to see the code is passive, > echoing > > only. > > > > Sam > > > > > > > > > > -- > > PHP Development Mailing List <http://www.php.net/> > > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > > > > -- > PHP Development Mailing List <http://www.php.net/> > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php -- PHP Development Mailing List <http://www.php.net/> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
