On 5/19/2011 9:00 AM, dukeofgaming wrote:
@Thomas
I agree on dropping<% for good, I personally don't know any project that
uses it and don't think there is currently any point to them anymore.
Also, I do use '
Yes.
--
Thomas Hruska
CubicleSoft President
Barebones CMS is a high-performance, o
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 7:52 PM, dukeofgaming wrote:
> On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Philip Olson
> wrote:
>
> > >
> > > @all
> > >
> > > Can we decide on decoupling > tag
> > > matter?
> >
> > It feels like decoupling not
> > seen objections or reasons for not doing it, so think we can saf
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Philip Olson wrote:
> >
> > @all
> >
> > Can we decide on decoupling tag
> > matter?
>
> It feels like decoupling seen objections or reasons for not doing it, so think we can safely assume
> that it's been decided.
>
Awesome
>
> @all
>
> Can we decide on decoupling matter?
It feels like decoupling http://www.php.net/unsub.php
@Michael
Those are interesting ideas, I think you can register by yourself on the
wiki, so you can add the RFC. OTOH, and again, I must say I really think the
echo shortcut should be regarded as a separate issue, and now that there was
some consensus we shouldn't deviate from the topic.
In the en
Something I would add to this - I personally do use short tags in an open
source project because mod_rewrite functionality, implemented either at the
.htaccess level or at the httpd.config level. In either event, if you can
use mod_rewrite, setting the php flag for short tags is trivial so I know i
I don't think this problems calls for a more flexible solution. On the
other hand I think the flexibility _is_ the problem. Today if I want
to write compatible php code I can neither use:
...
or
wrote:
> I like the idea of having an option for no tags needed, since its a .php
> file (or w
On 5/19/2011 12:23 AM, Arvids Godjuks wrote:
It's essentially the same what I said - move it out of stort_tags and
make it "On" permanently.
As I remember the decision to remove short_tags was made together with
register_globals, magic_quotes and other legacy stuff. I can be that I
remember wron
I like the idea of having an option for no tags needed, since its a .php
file (or what ever you have set as your interpd name) that gets sent to the
interpreter anyway, it shouldnt really need opening tag,
the only thing of this that i dont like is the runtime side of it, imo that
shouldnt be an o
Some time ago I floated this idea without any traction. I wanted to make an
RFC but never got any help in setting up an account to submit it. Here it
is again:
Tag style can be set from the ini file, htaccess/httpdconfig or changed at
runtime. If changed at runtime it only affects files that hav
It's essentially the same what I said - move it out of stort_tags and
make it "On" permanently.
As I remember the decision to remove short_tags was made together with
register_globals, magic_quotes and other legacy stuff. I can be that I
remember wrongly, but really do people really use <% ?
2011
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 8:53 AM, Arvids Godjuks wrote:
> Hello.
>
> As a userland developer i'm all for it. Remove short_tags and decouple
>
>
I think that it's a little bit hasty.
I would propose that the short open echo should be always enabled
independently from the short_open_tag, and this sh
Hello.
As a userland developer i'm all for it. Remove short_tags and decouple
:
> So what would be there to discuss or agree on?, now that the topic is at
> hand.
>
> Regards,
>
> David
>
> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 9:05 PM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
>
>> Hi!
>>
>>
>> As far as I remember there weren't
So what would be there to discuss or agree on?, now that the topic is at
hand.
Regards,
David
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 9:05 PM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
>
> As far as I remember there weren't any serious objections to decoupling
>> > tags in a file, and nobody else is going to come along an
Hi!
As far as I remember there weren't any serious objections to decoupling
That's what I think too, but since there was no agreement fixed on that,
I put it into discussion part.
--
Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect
SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/
(408)454-6900 ext. 227
--
PHP Inte
On 05/18/2011 04:47 PM, Philip Olson wrote:
>> apparently somebody else brought up the shortag(specifically the > topic again, and I've noticed that you moved the rfc from declined to "In
>> discussion" recently (https://wiki.php.net/rfc/shortags?do=revisions), so I
>> would like to know that are
> apparently somebody else brought up the shortag(specifically the topic again, and I've noticed that you moved the rfc from declined to "In
> discussion" recently (https://wiki.php.net/rfc/shortags?do=revisions), so I
> would like to know that are these rules still hold, or did something happen
Hi,
I'm that somebody Tyrael is talking about. FTR, I'm all for deprecating
short tags, but I do feel the echo shortcut is a separate issue. Perhaps if
wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 8:06 PM, Philip Olson wrote:
>
> > PLEASE, let the dead horse be!
>
> >>>
> >> Apparently, this horse is
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 8:06 PM, Philip Olson wrote:
> 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
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 ass
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 unsubscribe
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 http://suso.org/
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.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 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
Hello everyone.
I've been writing 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 . Bacicaly PHP parser
should look for
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 1:26 PM, Glen wrote:
> I didn't say PHP tags were valid XML. I said short_open_tag conflicts
> with
> <% is not valid XML either, but it doesn't conflict with processing
> instructions.
>
> Glen.
Hello Glen,
posting to mailing-lists is not a speed race so think about
I didn't say PHP tags were valid XML. I said short_open_tag conflicts
with 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
> though
Why such a complicated-looking thing (that breaks syntax-highlighting,
at least in my IDE), when you can just use:
'; ?>
Or turn short_open_tag off (and asp_tags on), and use:
...
<%= $this->that; %>
Glen.
Kenan Sulayman wrote:
> Hey Guys,
>
> Whenever I start an XHTML document, I do escape i
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:
>>
>> that;?>
>>
>> .. works. i.e. no whitespace after the opening tag.
>>
>> Changing this would most likely break a fair amount
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_t
PLEASE, let the dead horse be!
--Jani
Glen wrote:
Right, but at the moment something like:
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 Malyshev
Right, but at the moment something like:
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 Malyshev wrote:
>
>> Hi!
>>
>>> Thats because with short_op
I'm not suggesting anyone be forced to do anything.
But:
...
<%= $this->that; %>
Looks neater than:
'; ?>
...
that; ?>
Hence my suggestion.
Glen.
Mike Panchenko wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 1:06 PM, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
>
>
>> It's a pretty small use case (that's a problem only
Stan Vassilev | FM wrote:
> Hi,
>
> A vote in support of short tags, although last time I checked they were
> not removed in PHP6 (and I hate to see this brought up once more).
> On top of that, the supposed XML conflict argument is not fully thought
> through, since full PHP tags are not XML comp
Hi,
A vote in support of short tags, although last time I checked they were not
removed in PHP6 (and I hate to see this brought up once more).
On top of that, the supposed XML conflict argument is not fully thought
through, since full PHP tags are not XML compliant either:
"; ?>
In the above
Hey Guys,
Whenever I start an XHTML document, I do escape it this way:
Where the equals equals
So, please do not deprecate it - because it's important for me :$
Thanks,
(c) Kenan Sulayman
Freelance Designer and Programmer
Life's Live Poetry
2009/4/1
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 directive:
php.ini values : short_open_tag
PHP 4, 5_0
* Default
On 13-Apr-09, at 4:06 PM, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
Hi!
Thats because with short_open_tags on, you need to use:
'); ?>
It's a pretty small use case (that's a problem only if you have xml
documents which has to have php code which has to be inlined) and as
you see, can be easily handled.
On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 1:06 PM, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
> It's a pretty small use case (that's a problem only if you have xml
> documents which has to have php code which has to be inlined) and as you
> see, can be easily handled. I think that should not make whole very useful
> syntax depreca
Hi!
Thats because with short_open_tags on, you need to use:
'); ?>
It's a pretty small use case (that's a problem only if you have xml
documents which has to have php code which has to be inlined) and as you
see, can be easily handled. I think that should not make whole very
useful syntax d
It was not my intention to initiate a massive debate regarding the use
of short_open_tag.
I posted for two reasons:
1. To ask if short_open_tag has been deprecated in PHP 6.
2. To suggest asp_tags as the recommended option for templating in PHP
(to keep both crowds* happy).
* The crowd *for* the
I think that's what he meant by "escape it". I haven't used short_open_tags
myself much, but as I've been exploring templating options I like it for
outputting variables.
James Logsdon
On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 2:24 PM, Kalle Sommer Nielsen wrote:
> 2009/4/13 Jeremy :
> > Glen wrote:
> >>
> >> It
2009/4/13 Jeremy :
> Glen wrote:
>>
>> It's short, and it doesn't conflict with XML.
>>
>
> I have to say, I don't understand all the hate on short_open_tag. So what
> if it "conflicts" with XML? PHP is not XML. If you use an XML construct in
> your PHP, escape it. PHP can generate a lot of oth
42 matches
Mail list logo
