Well some people find "=~" quite readable.
But this is all funky magic stuff that is simply not easy to read.
For the newbie '{opentag} echo ' is much more clear than '{opentag}= '.
Actually this syntax is simply more predicatable for anyone that does
not use {opentag}= ' all day. So not only newbies, but also casual php
programmers or people that spend a lot of their time also coding in
other languages will be more happy with the '{opentag} echo ' variant.Do you dispute this fact? And this is what php is about. Otherwise we will venture into perl land and php will loose one of its keys to success. 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 6:50 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] <?= and <%= both work, why not <?php= > > As I said. The assumption that '<?php echo $var ?>' is more readable than > '<?php= $var ?>' is not universally supported. I'm not alone in finding > the > latter easier to read. > > To answer your aside, I spend alot of time writing code followed by > reading > and maintaining that code. > > I prefer the '<?php' opening tag to '<?' or '<%', but I find '{opentag}= ' > more readable than '{opentag} echo ', which means I have to either make my > code harder for me to read, or I have to use tag styles which are not > portable, and/or cause other issues. > > - Theo > > -----Original Message----- > From: Lukas Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 12:38 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] <?= and <%= both work, why not <?php= > > > > 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 > > > -- > 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
