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

On Fri, 2002-04-26 at 20:07, Sterling Hughes wrote: > > 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, please don't be abusive in plural first person. I for one have no desire to be associated with the attitude exhibited. - Stig