At 09:33 AM 11/15/2001 +0100, Stig S. Bakken wrote:
Shane Caraveo wrote:
Andi Gutmans wrote:
Implementing this is not a problem but it seems that there is no
consensus
on adding it.
I'm not sure what I think. I was very much against ?= but now it exists
and is used by a lot
It's odd and inconsistent to have %=, ?=, but not ?php=.
I was also against ?= originally, but now that we do have it I agree
that consistency (symmetry?) is better.
Let's take this one step further (into absurdity ;-) and also add
script language=php= %var; /script
just for consistency,
Marc Boeren wrote:
Let's take this one step further (into absurdity ;-) and also add
script language=php= %var; /script
IMHO: script language=php=$var/script
--
Hartmut Holzgraefe [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.six.de +49-711-99091-77
--
PHP Development Mailing List
On Fri, 16 Nov 2001, Marc Boeren wrote:
Let's take this one step further (into absurdity ;-) and also add
script language=php= %var; /script
Why not remove this utter crap at all? =) (I know about BC, but I really
think these tags are stupid). Maybe something to remove (or add a warning)
in
script language=php= %var; /script
IMHO: script language=php=$var/script
Ah well, it should have read $var of course, but the language is still
'php', not 'php='...
Cheerio, Marc.
--
PHP Development Mailing List http://www.php.net/
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional
script language=php= $var; /script
Why not remove this utter crap at all? =)
BC!
(I know about BC,
O.
:)
I never use the syntax, so I'm just going +1 for consistency and adding
?php=
Then I will still not use it, but people who do use it now as ?= can then
go to the much
At 12:14 PM 11/16/2001 +0100, Marc Boeren wrote:
It's odd and inconsistent to have %=, ?=, but not ?php=.
I was also against ?= originally, but now that we do have it I agree
that consistency (symmetry?) is better.
Let's take this one step further (into absurdity ;-) and also add
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 16 Nov 2001, Marc Boeren wrote:
Let's take this one step further (into absurdity ;-) and also add
script language=php= %var; /script
Why not remove this utter crap at all? =) (I know about BC, but I really
think these tags are stupid). Maybe something
At 09:33 AM 11/15/2001 +0100, Stig S. Bakken wrote:
Shane Caraveo wrote:
Andi Gutmans wrote:
Implementing this is not a problem but it seems that there is no
consensus
on adding it.
I'm not sure what I think. I was very much against ?= but now it exists
and is used
At 05:42 AM 11/16/2001 -0800, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
Now all that is left is to decide :) I think we're at a deadlock.
Who opposes this strongly?
I don't like it, but it is not strong opposition. To me it just doesn't
read nicely at all:
?php=$a?
compare with:
?$php=$a?
or:
Andi Gutmans wrote:
It seems that most people support ?php=. If no one comes up with a
convincing argument against I will add ?php= later on today. BTW, I never
liked the ?= syntax and opposed it at the time but I think today because
many people seem to like it, it makes sense to have ?php=
James Moore wrote:
When you cannot make up your mind, choose consistency. In this case,
like it or not, the consistent thing to do is add it.
I agree. It's very confusing that ?php= doesn't exist.
Since nobody really objects to the addition of ?php= tag, why doesn't
Shane Caraveo wrote:
Andi Gutmans wrote:
Implementing this is not a problem but it seems that there is no consensus
on adding it.
I'm not sure what I think. I was very much against ?= but now it exists
and is used by a lot of people it might be good to have ?php= but then
again I
Stig S. Bakken wrote:
I was also against ?= originally, but now that we do have it I agree
that consistency (symmetry?) is better.
i guess the term is orthogonality?
--
Hartmut Holzgraefe [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.six.de +49-711-99091-77
--
PHP Development Mailing List
It's not only because of xml stuff but also because of
the portability reasons..not everyone has short-tags enabled.
Would it be that most of the people who have them enabled do that
just because ?php= doesn't work..?
+1 for ?php= if those short-tags are deprecated. :)
--Jani
On Fri, 9 Nov
SHORT TAGS WILL NOT BE DEPRECATED.
There.
Zeev
At 15:54 09/11/2001, Jani Taskinen wrote:
It's not only because of xml stuff but also because of
the portability reasons..not everyone has short-tags enabled.
Would it be that most of the people who have them enabled do that
just because ?php=
James Moore wrote:
It isnt a question of technical reasons its a question
of keeping the language clear, readable and concise.
I agree.
Adding more magic functions here and there does not do
that, lets leave it as it is and discourage people
from using it, it makes code less
Quoting Edin Kadribasic [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Combine that with incompatibility of PHP's short open tag with XML, and the
reason for having ?php= becomes clearer.
As Rasmus is probably tired of pointing out, this isn't much of an argument.
This:
if ($i 4) {
...
is incompatible with XML
Combine that with incompatibility of PHP's short open tag with XML, and
the
reason for having ?php= becomes clearer.
As Rasmus is probably tired of pointing out, this isn't much of an
argument.
This:
if ($i 4) {
...
is incompatible with XML (it'd have to be if ($i lt; 4) ...)
Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
I think it also good time to get rid of ? ? and ?= ? syntax
(at least, announce ? ? syntax is obsolete), add ?php= ?
syntax for replacement, since PHP4.1.0 is in release process.
What could possibly be the motivation for that? Very few PHP users mix
XML and PHP in
On Fri, Oct 26, 2001 at 04:05:41PM +0900, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote :
When I start using PHP, I was currious why there is no ?php= ?
while there are ?= ? and %= %.
I realized, ?php= ? syntax is really easy to implement while I
was looking for what's wrong in memory management.
I think ?php=
The only possible valid point here is that the character encoding
specification in XHTML uses ?xml version=... encoding=...? although this
can also be done through a meta http-equiv... tag so it is quite
possible to write perfectly valid XHTML without forcing people to use
?php ...?
On Fri, 26 Oct 2001, Edin Kadribasic wrote:
The only possible valid point here is that the character encoding
specification in XHTML uses ?xml version=... encoding=...? although this
can also be done through a meta http-equiv... tag so it is quite
possible to write perfectly valid XHTML
Jani Taskinen wrote:
I'd rather see these magic hacks to be removed altogether..
+1 for removing short-tags and the hacks.
These aren't hacks from a technical perspective.
I personally am also for ?php= ? its quite useful as a
shortcut instead of ?php echo ?, i
I'd rather see these magic hacks to be removed altogether..
+1 for removing short-tags and the hacks.
There are many hacks. For example, it is completely non-SGML and non-XML
compliant to use inside a PI tag. So if we were to go through and
really remove all the magic hacks everyone would
At 02:41 PM 10/26/2001 +0200, Sterling Hughes wrote:
Jani Taskinen wrote:
I'd rather see these magic hacks to be removed altogether..
+1 for removing short-tags and the hacks.
These aren't hacks from a technical perspective.
I personally am also for ?php= ? its quite useful
Andi Gutmans wrote:
We definitely can't remove short tags as it is too common. However, I
have always been against the short ?= notation because it just saves
I do not prefer to use short tags also. This is one of the reason
why I prefer to have ?php=. I think many people enables ? or %
At 04:34 AM 10/27/01 +0200, Zeev Suraski wrote:
At 14:39 26/10/2001, Jani Taskinen wrote:
I'd rather see these magic hacks to be removed altogether..
+1 for removing short-tags and the hacks.
+1 for kicking Jani in the PHP congress :)
I can't be there, so you'll have to do the job for both of
I think it also good time to get rid of ? ? and ?= ? syntax
(at least, announce ? ? syntax is obsolete), add ?php= ?
syntax for replacement, since PHP4.1.0 is in release process.
What could possibly be the motivation for that? Very few PHP users mix
XML and PHP in the same file. Sure, it
29 matches
Mail list logo
