Re: [PHP-DEV] ?php= ? sytanx again
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 of people it might be good to have ?php= but then again I can't make up my mind :) Andi When you cannot make up your mind, choose consistency. In this case, like it or not, the consistent thing to do is add it. 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. Now all that is left is to decide :) I think we're at a deadlock. Who opposes this strongly? Andi -- PHP Development Mailing List http://www.php.net/ To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [PHP-DEV] ?php= ? sytanx again
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, of course :) Now all that is left is to decide :) I think we're at a deadlock. Who opposes this strongly? Not me, I use ?php all the time... Cheerio, Marc. -- PHP Development Mailing List http://www.php.net/ To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PHP-DEV] ?php= ? sytanx again
Marc Boeren wrote: Let's take this one step further (into absurdity ;-) and also add script language=php= %var; /script IMHO: script language=php=$var/script -- Hartmut Holzgraefe [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.six.de +49-711-99091-77 -- PHP Development Mailing List http://www.php.net/ To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [PHP-DEV] ?php= ? sytanx again
On Fri, 16 Nov 2001, Marc Boeren wrote: Let's take this one step further (into absurdity ;-) and also add script language=php= %var; /script Why not remove this utter crap at all? =) (I know about BC, but I really think these tags are stupid). Maybe something to remove (or add a warning) in PHP 4.2.0 ? Derick -- PHP Development Mailing List http://www.php.net/ To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [PHP-DEV] ?php= ? sytanx again
script language=php= %var; /script IMHO: script language=php=$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 commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [PHP-DEV] ?php= ? sytanx again
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 better-looking ?php style tags If we're going to remove anything, remove the asp-style tags! (does anybody use them? (well, probably...)) Cheerio, Marc. -- PHP Development Mailing List http://www.php.net/ To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [PHP-DEV] ?php= ? sytanx again
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 script language=php= %var; /script just for consistency, of course :) Blah. This will *never* be supported and I don't think it makes sense to include this in the discussion about ?=, ,%= and ?php= Now all that is left is to decide :) I think we're at a deadlock. Who opposes this strongly? Not me, I use ?php all the time... 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= for consistency sake. Andi -- PHP Development Mailing List http://www.php.net/ To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [PHP-DEV] ?php= ? sytanx again
[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 to remove (or add a warning) in PHP 4.2.0 ? Derick Do not remove script language=php/script It's very useful in some cases. For example if you transform xsl/xml into html with embedded php to execute later. This is not utter crap. -- Lenar Lõhmus Vision Group -- PHP Development Mailing List http://www.php.net/ To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PHP-DEV] ?php= ? sytanx again
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 of people it might be good to have ?php= but then again I can't make up my mind :) Andi When you cannot make up your mind, choose consistency. In this case, like it or not, the consistent thing to do is add it. 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. 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: ?php $php=$a? ?=$a? is maginally better because at least there is nothing to the left of the = sign to visually confuse matters. -Rasmus -- PHP Development Mailing List http://www.php.net/ To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PHP-DEV] ?php= ? sytanx again
At 05:42 AM 11/16/2001 -0800, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: Now all that is left is to decide :) I think we're at a deadlock. Who opposes this strongly? I don't like it, but it is not strong opposition. To me it just doesn't read nicely at all: ?php=$a? compare with: ?$php=$a? or: ?php $php=$a? ?=$a? is maginally better because at least there is nothing to the left of the = sign to visually confuse matters. I see what you're saying and looking at it I agree that ?php= is actually worse than ?=. Maybe we should just stick to the status quo and whine about the fact that we introduced ?= to begin with :) Andi -- PHP Development Mailing List http://www.php.net/ To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PHP-DEV] ?php= ? sytanx again
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= for consistency sake. Let's put it this way: who cares. It doesn't break any existing code, does it? As long as nobody is *obliged* to use it... However I'm still under the impression that it's the wrong solution to the wrong question. -- PHP Development Mailing List http://www.php.net/ To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PHP-DEV] ?php= ? sytanx again
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 somebody with the Zend CVS access commits the Yasuo's patch so we can close this discussion. Sorry to put a spanner in the works but adding ?php= isnt a good idea, its more magic and I dont think we should be adding any more magic to the language. ?php echo is only 4 exta chars and is more readable, I would vote for depreciation of ?= and %= but I know thats not going to happen either, lets not make the situation worse by adding more magic. Remember, PHP is hackish/magical by nature. The language itself is embedded, you can't write a single code file without the magical open tag in front! Even hash-bang shell scripts need to start with ?php. That's what's magical about PHP. With this perspective, I think the remove short tags NOW! protest demonstration is utterly pointless. :-) - Stig -- PHP Development Mailing List http://www.php.net/ To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PHP-DEV] ?php= ? sytanx again
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 can't make up my mind :) Andi When you cannot make up your mind, choose consistency. In this case, like it or not, the consistent thing to do is add it. 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. - Stig -- PHP Development Mailing List http://www.php.net/ To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PHP-DEV] ?php= ? sytanx again
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 http://www.php.net/ To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PHP-DEV] ?php= ? sytanx again
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 2001, Edin Kadribasic wrote:
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 ($i lt; 4) ...)
That's not what I'm talking about. Last time I tried
?xml ...
with short open tag enabled, PHP gave me parse error.
Edin
--
PHP Development Mailing List http://www.php.net/
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PHP-DEV] ?php= ? sytanx again
SHORT TAGS WILL NOT BE DEPRECATED.
There.
Zeev
At 15:54 09/11/2001, Jani Taskinen wrote:
It's not only because of xml stuff but also because of
the portability reasons..not everyone has short-tags enabled.
Would it be that most of the people who have them enabled do that
just because ?php= doesn't work..?
+1 for ?php= if those short-tags are deprecated. :)
--Jani
On Fri, 9 Nov 2001, Edin Kadribasic wrote:
Combine that with incompatibility of PHP's short open tag with XML, and
the
reason for having ?php= becomes clearer.
As Rasmus is probably tired of pointing out, this isn't much of an
argument.
This:
if ($i 4) {
...
is incompatible with XML (it'd have to be if ($i lt; 4) ...)
That's not what I'm talking about. Last time I tried
?xml ...
with short open tag enabled, PHP gave me parse error.
Edin
--
PHP Development Mailing List http://www.php.net/
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
PHP Development Mailing List http://www.php.net/
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PHP-DEV] ?php= ? sytanx again
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 obvious. No objection to discourage use of ?, ?=,% and %= if there is open tag with echo. PHP is pretty good at being self documenting, one of the aims of any Higher level language and this syntax is ambiguios and unclear as to what exactly it does. ?php= is less ambigiuos than ?= or %=. Lack of ?php= is encouraging use of %= or ?=. IMHO. Some people, including me, prefer to use open tag with echo since it looks better on source *mostly* written in HTML. We use template feature came with WISWYG HTML editor. Almost all php values and ouputs are printed by open tag with echo. Getting rid of template handling burden from PHP improves performance and makes collaboration with HTML designer easier, since templates and pages generated are almost complete HTML. It's possible without open tag with echo, though. I'm not sure how others feels, but it looks better and easier to read for me if there is open tag with echo... With ?php echo or ?php print, it seems I need extra step in my brain to read.:) Following HTML/PHP source is very simpile, but you might be able to see the difference. For complex HTML/CSS with PHP, the difference is obvious to me, at least. html head title?php= CurrentTitle() ?/title /head body table tr td colspan=2?php= LoginStatus() ?/td /tr tr td colspan=2?php= $Message ?/td /tr tr tdLogin Name/td td?php= $LoginName ?/td /tr tr tdFirst Name/td td?php= $FirstName ?/td /tr tr tdLast Name/td td?php= $LastName ?/td /tr tr tdLogin Options/td td?php= $LoginOptions ?/td /tr /table /body /html With ?php echo, it seems I need extra step in my brain to read. It may be related that I read/write Kanji. I guess it depends on how you search patterns in text in your brain... html head title?php echo CurrentTitle() ?/title /head body table tr td colspan=2?php echo LoginStatus() ?/td /tr tr td colspan=2?php echo $Message ?/td /tr tr tdLogin Name/td td?php echo $LoginName ?/td /tr tr tdFirst Name/td td?php echo $FirstName ?/td /tr tr tdLast Name/td td?php echo $LastName ?/td /tr tr tdLogin Options/td td?php echo $LoginOptions ?/td /tr /table /body /html Since there is no ?php=, I use %= as follows currently. It works fine, but it's not portable. % is not enabled by default. Lack of ?php= is encouraging use of %= at least for me. html head title%= CurrentTitle() %/title /head body table tr td colspan=2%= LoginStatus() %/td /tr tr td colspan=2%= $Message %/td /tr tr tdLogin Name/td td%= $LoginName %/td /tr tr tdFirst Name/td td%= $FirstName %/td /tr tr tdLast Name/td td%= $LastName %/td /tr tr tdLogin Options/td td%= $LoginOptions %/td /tr /table /body /html -- Yasuo Ohgaki _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com -- PHP Development Mailing List http://www.php.net/ To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PHP-DEV] ?php= ? sytanx again
Quoting Edin Kadribasic [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Combine that with incompatibility of PHP's short open tag with XML, and the
reason for having ?php= becomes clearer.
As Rasmus is probably tired of pointing out, this isn't much of an argument.
This:
if ($i 4) {
...
is incompatible with XML (it'd have to be if ($i lt; 4) ...)
I find it unfortunate that there's a feature available with short tags on that
isn't available with them off, because that means it's a feature that you can't
use if you want to write code that'll work with anyone's php installation. But
that's about it - I end up on the fence.
-chuck
--
Charles Hagenbuch, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
What was and what may be, lie, like children whose faces we cannot see, in the
arms of silence. All we ever have is here, now. - Ursula K. Le Guin
--
PHP Development Mailing List http://www.php.net/
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PHP-DEV] ?php= ? sytanx again
Combine that with incompatibility of PHP's short open tag with XML, and
the
reason for having ?php= becomes clearer.
As Rasmus is probably tired of pointing out, this isn't much of an
argument.
This:
if ($i 4) {
...
is incompatible with XML (it'd have to be if ($i lt; 4) ...)
That's not what I'm talking about. Last time I tried
?xml ...
with short open tag enabled, PHP gave me parse error.
Edin
--
PHP Development Mailing List http://www.php.net/
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PHP-DEV] ?php= ? sytanx again
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 the same file. Sure, it happens, but it is by no means the common thing to do. 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= ? syntax is nice to have, since it can work with any php configuration. I also think programming language better to be symetric whenever possible. (If there are ?=, %=, why not ?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 ...? everywhere. I agree, I just do not prefer to use meta tags... If there is people prefer to use meta tags, getting rid of ? ? is not good idea. ? start tag may confuse some new PHP users, but it's not a big deal. -- Yasuo Ohgaki __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! BB is Broadband by Yahoo! http://bb.yahoo.co.jp/ -- PHP Development Mailing List http://www.php.net/ To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PHP-DEV] ?php= ? sytanx again
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= ? syntax is nice to have, since it can work with any php configuration. I also think programming language better to be symetric whenever possible. (If there are ?=, %=, why not ?php=) +1 on this too. So you can write portable scripts (short tag may be disabled) and still can use the short form for output data. - Markus -- PHP Development Mailing List http://www.php.net/ To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PHP-DEV] ?php= ? sytanx again
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 ...? everywhere. If you want your PHP code to work everywhere you need to use ?php. I see no harm in allowing ?php= syntax (and would personally love to se Yasuo's patch applied). -- PHP Development Mailing List http://www.php.net/ To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PHP-DEV] ?php= ? sytanx again
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 without forcing people to use ?php ...? everywhere. If you want your PHP code to work everywhere you need to use ?php. I see no harm in allowing ?php= syntax (and would personally love to se Yasuo's patch applied). +1 from me too, it's better then having to do: ?php echo $blaat; ? Derick - PHP: Scripting the Web - www.php.net - [EMAIL PROTECTED] SRM: Site Resource Manager - www.vl-srm.net - -- PHP Development Mailing List http://www.php.net/ To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PHP-DEV] ?php= ? sytanx again
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 don't see what's hacky about this (plus sometimes you need to write hacky code just to get something simple done). -Sterling --Jani On Fri, 26 Oct 2001, Derick Rethans wrote: 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 without forcing people to use ?php ...? everywhere. If you want your PHP code to work everywhere you need to use ?php. I see no harm in allowing ?php= syntax (and would personally love to se Yasuo's patch applied). +1 from me too, it's better then having to do: ?php echo $blaat; ? Derick - PHP: Scripting the Web - www.php.net - [EMAIL PROTECTED] SRM: Site Resource Manager - www.vl-srm.net - -- PHP Development Mailing List http://www.php.net/ To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PHP-DEV] ?php= ? sytanx again
I'd rather see these magic hacks to be removed altogether..
+1 for removing short-tags and the hacks.
There are many hacks. For example, it is completely non-SGML and non-XML
compliant to use inside a PI tag. So if we were to go through and
really remove all the magic hacks everyone would have to write code like:
if($a gt; $b) {
$bgt;gt;1;
}
Just for the record, I am not against ?php=, but I am very much against
removing the short tags.
-Rasmus
--
PHP Development Mailing List http://www.php.net/
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PHP-DEV] ?php= ? sytanx again
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 as a shortcut instead of ?php echo ?, i don't see what's hacky about this (plus sometimes you need to write hacky code just to get something simple done). 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 three characters and I think it's a hack just so that people don't have to write ? echo. I personally don't think ?php= should be added and I don't quite understand why people can't just write ?php echo. Does everyone really type so slowly? :) Andi -- PHP Development Mailing List http://www.php.net/ To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PHP-DEV] ?php= ? sytanx again
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 % tags just to use OPEN_TAG_WITH_ECHO. I'm one of them enables ASP tag for that... ?= and %= are not portable, too. Having many ?php echo does not look nice, especially if file is written in mostly HTML... Not having ?php= is promoting use of short tags. (At least for me) -- Yasuo Ohgaki -- PHP Development Mailing List http://www.php.net/ To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PHP-DEV] ?php= ? sytanx again
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 us, Zeev. :) -Andrei -- PHP Development Mailing List http://www.php.net/ To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PHP-DEV] ?php= ? sytanx again
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 happens, but it is by no means the common thing to do. 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 ...? everywhere. -Rasmus -- PHP Development Mailing List http://www.php.net/ To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
