Re: [RFC] Pure-code source files via the .phpc extension

On Tue, Jun 16, 2026 at 3:34 PM Hendrik Mennen <hmennen90@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Am 16.06.2026 um 20:43 schrieb Derick Rethans <derick@php.net>: > > On 16 June 2026 09:47:07 BST, Hendrik Mennen <hmennen90@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Am 16.06.2026 um 09:26 schrieb Davey Shafik <me@daveyshafik.com>: > > On Jun 15, 2026, at 21:25, Hendrik Mennen <hmennen90@gmail.com> wrote: > > <snip> > > > If that friction is not worth solving, that is a legitimate position > and I would rather hear that than dress the proposal up to look > weightier than it is. Three honest paths from here, and I would find > it useful if respondents could say which they are closest to: > > 1. The friction is real and a small targeted addition is worth > shipping. (what the RFC proposes) > 2. The friction is real but the mechanism is wrong. (in which case: > what signal would you prefer? per-file declare, magic first line, > SAPI-only, ...) > 3. The friction is not real, or not worth a language change at all. > > > I am strongly in camp 3; I see zero value in this. > > Adding meaning to a specific extension is a BC break when no extensions > have meaning prior. In addition, it makes it difficult to identify the file > type from the code alone if you're not familiar with it. > > There really isn't any friction here, any decent editor or IDE will give > you a default file header with the open tag (at least). At worst they'll > auto-complete after at most 2 characters. > > It's also important to note that other languages have explicit template > files like Jinja or ERB, PHP does not have this and is itself essentially > both the template language and the full programming language. > > Yes it's a legacy way of doing things like ASP classic or ColdFusion, but > that doesn't make it wrong or bad. > > - Davey > > > Hi Davey, > > Thanks for the direct camp-3 position - the (1/2/3) framing was > intended exactly to surface that kind of clarity, and a voter > landing explicitly in 3 with substantive reasons is more useful > to me than vague reservations would have been. > > > Did you generate this reply with an LLM? It certainly reads like that. > > I'm asking because I find it an extremely rude thing to do, unless it is > to assist with language. > > Because if people don't want to spend their own time and effort coming > with an argument, then I also don't find it necessary for me to reply to > them, or hear what they're saying. > > cheers > Derick > > > > Hi Derick, > > > Yes, I use AI but for assist - not to „copy-paste“ reply. > > > Reason for this: I’m native German and it’s easier for me to write an > answer with LLM instead of using google translator for words, which don’t > come to my mind. > > To clarify my position with LLM: It’s a tool and not a placement. > > > Hendrik > > Here's a thought - Instead of .phpc as an extension, why not <?phpc or even <?psf (PHP source file). Explicitly tell the engine "nothing should be before this other than a shebang, no further tags will be in this file. That also solves the inadverted echo problem and would be fully BC. Not convinced it would be useful, but it has fewer problems.