> 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