> > Jim Moseby wrote: > >>Robin Vickery wrote: > >> > >>>On 11/15/05, Roman Ivanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>>Can '<?=' be used for templates, or is it "a bad thing"? > >>> > >>> > >>>The manual's reasonably explicit on the subject: > >>> > >>>"Note: Using short tags should be avoided when developing > >>>applications or libraries that are meant for redistribution, or > >>>deployment on PHP servers which are not under your control, because > >>>short tags may not be supported on the target server. For portable, > >>>redistributable code, be sure not to use short tags." > >> > >>I've seen this note. But I haven't seen a single server where > >>short tags > >>were disabled. > > > > > > Nor have I. However, if I use long tags, my script will > *always* work. If > > I use short tags there is a *possibility* that it won't. > So, when writing > > code that is required to be portable, there is no reason to > ever use short > > tags. > > so how many people actually _need_ to write portable code?
I don't know, but those who do should not use short tags. And those who hope to should not get into the habit of using short tags. > ok > so many you > are starting a project which will become a runaway success > but until it starts > receiving alot of attention use of short-open-tags is > probably not your biggest > issue either. It will be when you have to sort through 1,000,000 lines of code in 400 files to change '<?' to '<?PHP'. Better to save the grief and do it right to start with, no? > > lets assume that everyone should be writing completely > portable apps, why does this > ini setting exist? what is the point of offering a setting > that can be set to a > bad(tm) value by design? I don't know. A very good question for the PHP architects. :o) JM -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
