Hi,
A vote in support of short tags, although last time I checked they were not
removed in PHP6 (and I hate to see this brought up once more).
On top of that, the supposed XML conflict argument is not fully thought
through, since full PHP tags are not XML compliant either:
?php echo ?; ?
In
Stan Vassilev | FM wrote:
Hi,
A vote in support of short tags, although last time I checked they were
not removed in PHP6 (and I hate to see this brought up once more).
On top of that, the supposed XML conflict argument is not fully thought
through, since full PHP tags are not XML compliant
Some tests leave this crap behind:
? array_count_file
? tests/output/ob_start_basic_unerasable_005.php
? tests/security/magic_quotes_gpc.php
Might be related to that all tests fail currently.. :)
--Jani
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit:
I'm not suggesting anyone be forced to do anything.
But:
?xml version=1.0 encoding=UTF-8 ?
...
%= $this-that; %
Looks neater than:
?= '?xml version=1.0 encoding=UTF-8 ?'; ?
...
?= $this-that; ?
Hence my suggestion.
Glen.
Mike Panchenko wrote:
On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 1:06 PM, Stanislav
Thanks for the information, Philip.
I hereby summon the BDFL ... erm, no pressure. :-)
I really think ASP/JSP tags could be the answer.
Glen.
Philip Olson wrote:
Today this topic may be the cloudiest and most heated in all of PHP.
Here's the factual history of our poor little short_open_tag
Which horse are you referring to exactly?
Jani Taskinen wrote:
PLEASE, let the dead horse be!
--Jani
Glen wrote:
Right, but at the moment something like:
?$this-that;?
.. works. i.e. no whitespace after the opening tag.
Changing this would most likely break a fair amount of code.
Why such a complicated-looking thing (that breaks syntax-highlighting,
at least in my IDE), when you can just use:
?= '?xml version=1.0 encoding=UTF-8 ?'; ?
Or turn short_open_tag off (and asp_tags on), and use:
?xml version=1.0 encoding=UTF-8 ?
...
%= $this-that; %
Glen.
Kenan Sulayman
PLEASE, let the dead horse be!
--Jani
Glen wrote:
Right, but at the moment something like:
?$this-that;?
.. works. i.e. no whitespace after the opening tag.
Changing this would most likely break a fair amount of code.
Glen.
Evert | Filemobile wrote:
On 13-Apr-09, at 4:06 PM, Stanislav
I didn't say PHP tags were valid XML. I said short_open_tag conflicts
with ?xml and other PIs.
% is not valid XML either, but it doesn't conflict with processing
instructions.
Glen.
Stan Vassilev | FM wrote:
Hi,
A vote in support of short tags, although last time I checked they
were not
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 1:26 PM, Glen glen...@gmail.com wrote:
I didn't say PHP tags were valid XML. I said short_open_tag conflicts
with ?xml and other PIs.
% is not valid XML either, but it doesn't conflict with processing
instructions.
Glen.
Hello Glen,
posting to mailing-lists is
Hello everyone.
I've been writing ?php echo get('something')? for some time now at the
last project and it really sucks. I understand reason on depricating
short_open_tag and I agree. But I have a proposal witch can ease templating.
Remove short open tag, but leave ?=get('blah')?. Bacicaly PHP
As Jani put it:
PLEASE, let the dead horse be!
- David
On 14.04.2009, at 17:11, Arvids Godjuks wrote:
Hello everyone.
I've been writing ?php echo get('something')? for some time now at
the
last project and it really sucks. I understand reason on depricating
short_open_tag and I agree.
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 03:11:10PM GMT, Arvids Godjuks
[arvids.godj...@gmail.com] said the following:
Yes, it's really irritating to write ?php echo every time!
Until you get used to it. I started with PHP back in 98 and remember
a bit of resistance in learning the ?php thing, but I knew it
Hi!
PLEASE, let the dead horse be!
Apparently, this horse is not as dead as some would like it to be :)
--
Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Software Architect
s...@zend.com http://www.zend.com/
(408)253-8829 MSN: s...@zend.com
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To
PLEASE, let the dead horse be!
Apparently, this horse is not as dead as some would like it to be :)
The horse is not dead or if so then no proper burial service was
given. People are still waiting for the invitations and wanting to
hear the eulogy.
So, instead I'll make the following
Hi!
I was looking at how to fix #47930 and unfortunately due to the fact
that ext/filter is called before it's initialized as an extension, the
only fix that I could think of requires change in the API. Please see
attached. Please tell me if anybody sees any problem with it.
--
Stanislav
Hi!
The attached patch implements automatic decoding of chunked
transfer-encoding.
From what I see in the patch, it requires chunked data prefix to be:
XXX\r\n
where XXX are from 1 to 3 hex digits. However RFC 2616 defines chunk
size as arbitrarily long sequence of HEX digits, and also
The attached patch implements automatic decoding of chunked
transfer-encoding.
Any objections against committing the patch into PHP_5_3?
I didn't have objections when I offered this filter several years ago,
and I still don't. I do recall Andi (or perhaps it was someone else)
saying it was
18 matches
Mail list logo
