Re: <?= and <%= both work, why not <?php=

> Ok. #1 is the first logical, technical reason I've seen against the > shorthand being fully implemented (though it begs the question why it was > partially implemented in the first place). > > I'm not to knowledgeable about SGML specifics (and I can't afford to spend > $200+ for a copy of the spec so I can spend a few weeks learning it just for > this), so I can't go into that, but extending this to XML is a falacy, > because PHP comparison syntax breaks the XML spec. I'm pretty sure that <% > echo $var %> (valid PHP) would cause most XML parsers to choke. > Just a guess, but when you say the alphabet, do you often say it as such: a,b,d,e,c,f,g,i... ? Your argument shows you either don't know php, or don't know how to think. The whole point of the <?php tag is to allow people to embed commands in XML documents. When short tags are disabled, commands such as <% echo 'HELLO'; %> don't work. If you allow <?php=?> syntax, it is not valid XML, which negates the point of having <?php in the first place. > As for #2 there's no flaw with the logic until you assume that '<?php echo ' > is somehow inherently more readable than '<?php= '. That's a matter of > opinion either way. > Perhaps if it were a computer making these assumptions, yes. But anyone with half a brain can see that <?php echo 'Hello'; ?> is much easer to understand for someone with no programming experience, than: <?php='Hello'?>. > By the time you get to #3, however, you've resorted to dreaming up new > unrequested language extensions, and references to 'magic' to support your > argument. I, and others, would argue that '<?php=' is no more 'magic' > than > '<?php echo'. We know what it means. > > If, as you imply, '<?=' and '<%=' are such a horrible > "disease" that their > very existance is proof that '<?php=' would be a syntactic travesty. Why > were they allowed in the first place? If they were implemented "due to > popular demand", why is popular demand not sufficient for '<?php='? > 42 > If you really do want some equivalent to your proposed '<?php~ $foo:$bar > ?>', then I might suggest '<?php= isset($foo)?$foo:$bar ?>', which I > believe > would already work as '<?php echo isset($foo)?$foo:$bar ?>', '<?= > isset($foo)?$foo:$bar ?>'. > Thanks for the tip, we didn't realize that. -Sterling