Re: Re: Go for votes for the open tag-less PHP files

What happens if two of them pass? On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 6:55 PM, Arvids Godjuks <arvids.godjuks@gmail.com> wrote: > 16 апреля 2012 г. 22:02 пользователь Kris Craig > <kris.craig@gmail.com>написал: > >> On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 10:31 AM, Rick WIdmer <vchkpw@developersdesk.com >> >wrote: >> >> > On 4/16/2012 3:31 AM, Arvids Godjuks wrote: >> > >> >> That's sad really, to be honest. >> >> I wonder if people even use this: >> >> >> >>  echo include 'foo.bar', 'baz'; >> >>> >> >> >> > Probably not,  Try it!  you get: >> > >> > 1baz >> > >> > It actually works more like >> > >> >   echo (include "foo.bar"), 'baz'; >> > >> > than >> > >> > >> >   echo include( "foo.bar"), 'baz'; >> > >> > >> > >> > More important include doesn't currently allow multiple parms: >> > >> >   include "foo.bar", 'baz'; >> > >> > Parse error: syntax error, unexpected ',' in bla.php on line xx >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > Rick >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List >> > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php >> > >> > >> I'll reiterate my position that I'm not ready to bring my RFC to a vote; >> and even if I was, the rules wouldn't allow it.  In fact, unless I'm >> mistaken, none of the RFCs have met the 2-week minimum requirement yet, so >> no vote can take place at this time.  But I do think we're making progress, >> so I would ask for a little extra patience from the peanut gallery for >> now.  =) >> >> To Arvids' point, I'm definitely leaning in that direction, but I'd like to >> hear a little bit more from anyone who believes a different approach would >> be better.  If nobody speaks-up, I'll just assume that we have consensus on >> that point and add it to the RFC. >> >> Regarding include/require, I agree that any BC break would be extremely >> minimal.  In the 10+ years I've been developing PHP, I don't think I've >> ever once seen somebody include multiple scripts on a single line (I wasn't >> even aware that such a thing was allowed).  So if it does pose a change, >> I'd be surprised if any existing scripts would be affected.  And since this >> is a major version increment we're talking about here, I think a small >> amount of allowance can be made for low-impact BC breakage IMHO. >> >> How about we just keep the parentheses optional and comma-seperate the >> arguments?  For example, the require syntax could look like this: >> >> require[(] $script_filename, $script_type = PHP_SCRIPT_TYPE_NORMAL [)]; >> >> Possible values for $script_type: >> >> PHP_SCRIPT_TYPE_NORMAL (0x01) >> >>   - If the included file contains PHP code, parse it. >> >> >> PHP_SCRIPT_TYPE_TAGLESS (0x02) >> >>   - Code is assumed to be PHP throughout the script.  The <?php tag throws >>   E_NOTICE and the ?> tag throws E_RECOVERABLE_ERROR. >> >> >> PHP_SCRIPT_TYPE_STACK (0x04) >> >>   - The $script_type is applied to all child scripts of the one being >>   included. >>   - Question : Would anyone see value in adding an override constant that, >>   while not recommended, allows the developer to apply a different >>   $script_type somewhere deeper in the stack?  Personally this doesn't >> sound >>   useful to me, but I'd be willing to put it in if enough of you wanted it. >> >> >> PHP_SCRIPT_TYPE_CODE_FILE (PHP_SCRIPT_TYPE_NORMAL & >> PHP_SCRIPT_TYPE_TAGLESS) >> >>   - The entire script is assumed to be PHP code and is parsed accordingly. >> >> >> PHP_SCRIPT_TYPE_CODE_STACK (PHP_SCRIPT_TYPE_NORMAL & >> PHP_SCRIPT_TYPE_TAGLESS & PHP_SCRIPT_TYPE_STACK) >> >>   - The entire script and all its child scripts (i.e. its "stack") are >>   assumed to be PHP code and parsed accordingly. >> >> >> What do you think? >> >> --Kris >> > > I think there is no need for that many constants and types of inclusion. > Just a PHP_SCRIPT_TYPE_NORMAL and PHP_SCRIPT_TYPE_CODE will suffice (the > later just expects the <?php at the very beginning of the file, like a > header, and no other ?> or <?= or <?php through the file). The KISS > principle still applies, and it should be kept that way. Too many options > and you end up with people abusing that on purpose with reasoning "Because > I can, f**k everybody else!" (it's a "pleasure" to work with such people).. > I don't like the idea of removing the <?php tag at all, because it will > mess up the syntax highlighting everywhere and annoy people that copy the > plain code without the <?php and get it not recognized as a valid source > code. -- Tom Boutell P'unk Avenue 215 755 1330 punkave.com window.punkave.com