Bug #16763 Updated: '<?=', and '<%=' are equivalent to echo, but '<?php=' is not

ID: 16763 Updated by: goba@php.net Reported By: tbrinkman@cinci.rr.com Status: Open Bug Type: Documentation problem Operating System: ALL PHP Version: 4.2.0 New Comment: > 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. ..and which tag is not XML safe. BTW <?php=$var?> is still not XML safe, so this is not a real argument ;) XML 1.0 specifies PIs: '<?' PITarget (S (Char * ... which means, that a space is needed after PITarget (which is php in this case). Previous Comments: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ [2002-04-26 11:16:17] tbrinkman@cinci.rr.com 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ [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? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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