Re: short_open_tag

Stanislav Malyshev kirjoitti:

I'd rather see <?php= than having this whole "short_open_tag" thing at all.

Does <?php= work? I though echo shortcut works only with short tags.

No, someone decided it shouldn't be added.

least. Unless we put <?php= in 5.2, which would make me a happy camper, but might be a trouble for others.

I wouldn't mind. Nor would couple of thousand other people. :)

I'd even use it myself. But I will not EVER enable the damn short tags again. And won't allow anyone else doing it either. And speaking of

What's wrong with short tags, can anybody explain me? [see below where you ask about the archive search..]

hostile code: ALL code is hostile unless you wrote it yourself. Have you

Not true. You probably use a ton of libraries, never veerifying they don['t screw up your include path, memory limits, etc.? Why short tags are so different?

Nobody can set memory_limit in a script during runtime. AFAICT. Short tags are language SYNTAX issue. That's why it's different. You don't get any plain error if they're "on" and something doesn't work. It just doesn't work or misbehaves.

And as you yourself instructed to check for "short_open_tag" in the archive search: Count how many hits it gives which talk about _problems_ with it.

Can you show which exactly search query you used, so we'd be sure we are talking about the same thing.

Just plain "short_open_tag" (without the quotes of course :). Here's the longish url: http://www.mail-archive.com/find.php?domains=www.mail-archive.com&q=short_open_tag&sa=Search+mailing+lists&sitesearch=www.mail-archive.com&client=pub-7266757337600734&forid=1&channel=2703820358&ie=ISO-8859-1&oe=ISO-8859-1&cof=GALT%3A%23C8C8C8%3BGL%3A1%3BDIV%3A%23CD9685%3BVLC%3A000000%3BAH%3Acenter%3BBGC%3AFFFFFF%3BLBGC%3AFFFFFF%3BALC%3A006792%3BLC%3A006792%3BT%3A000000%3BGFNT%3A006792%3BGIMP%3A006792%3BFORID%3A11&hl=en The first hits explain quite well why short_open_tag is bad, mmkay. --Jani