Bug #16763 Updated: '<?=', and '<%=' are equivalent to echo, but '<?php=' is not
| From: | tbrinkman at cinci dot rr dot com | Date: | Fri, 26 Apr 2002 15:16:18 +0000 |
| Subject: | Bug #16763 Updated: '<?=', and '<%=' are equivalent to echo, but '<?php=' is not | ||
| References: | 1 | Groups: | php.bugs php.doc |
| Request: | Send a blank email to php-bugs+get-6127@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
ID: 16763
Updated by: tbrinkman@cinci.rr.com
Reported By: tbrinkman@cinci.rr.com
Status: Open
Bug Type: Documentation problem
Operating System: ALL
PHP Version: 4.2.0
New Comment:
Actually, removing <?= wouldn't improve consistency unless you also
removed <%=. Nobody, it seems, is actually willing to remove the short
hand, so the only way to improve consistency is to support it in all
three cases. People who don't like the shorthand method will continue
to act as if it doesn't exist. People who do like the shorthand method
will no longer have to write code using an optional tag style which
requires an ini setting which is NOT set on every(or even most?)
servers.
Previous Comments:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[2002-04-25 20:09:34] yohgaki@php.net
Removing <?= and <%= works, too ;)
We are sure now. There will be people curious about not having <?php=,
since there are <?= and <%=.
It looks we are better to document about echo short cut, explicitly.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[2002-04-25 19:27:03] rasmus@php.net
Removing <?= would also improve consistency.
I don't buy the consistency argument.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[2002-04-25 19:13:34] yohgaki@php.net
I porposed the same thing monthes ago. I agree. It's strange not to
have <?php= since <?php tag is the only portable tag.
Anyway, in PHP, there are too many inconsistency to note and it's one
of them.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[2002-04-25 17:36:03] tbrinkman@cinci.rr.com
Do you mind if I ask why not? It's half-way implemented as it stands.
Both of the 'short form' tags support the behavior, what was the
reasoning behind not supporting it in the 'long form' tag?
Other than Rasmus's claim that he '...can't think of anything uglier
and less sensical...". If that was the reason for not fully supporting
the form, why was it partially implemented in the first place?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[2002-04-23 15:22:44] jimw@php.net
this was discussed to death on php-dev. it's not going to happen.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The remainder of the comments for this report are too long. To view
the rest of the comments, please view the bug report online at
http://bugs.php.net/16763
--
Edit this bug report at http://bugs.php.net/?id=16763&edit=1