I like the idea of having an option for no tags needed, since its a .php file (or what ever you have set as your interpd name) that gets sent to the interpreter anyway, it shouldnt really need opening tag,
the only thing of this that i dont like is the runtime side of it, imo that shouldnt be an option On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 3:39 PM, Michael Morris <dmgx.mich...@gmail.com>wrote: > Some time ago I floated this idea without any traction. I wanted to make an > RFC but never got any help in setting up an account to submit it. Here it > is again: > > Tag style can be set from the ini file, htaccess/httpdconfig or changed at > runtime. If changed at runtime it only affects files that haven't been > included yet. Tag Style can also be passed as the second argument to the > include, include_once, require, and require_once statements. Those > statements fall back to the current setting if a second argument isn't > passed. The tag style is a bitfield as follows: > > Bit > 0 -- Standard tags toggle > 1 -- Short tags toggle > 2 -- ASP tags toggle > 3 -- Script tags toggle > 4 -- Short echo toggle. > > For backwards compat ship with bits 0 and 3 set on. The existing short tags > mode is bits 1 and 4 on. If all the bits are turned off then we have the > PHP_TAGS_NONE setting. In that mode the engine assumes the whole file is > going to be PHP code since there will be no tags at all (helpful for class > libraries that don't create output in the MVC architecture). > > If the php.ini file has either of the legacy tag settings turned on, and > tag_style wasn't explicitly set, then php will set tag style to the values > it must have to mimic the intent of the setting. If tag_style is explicitly > set then it wins out - but a deprecated notice gets thrown to alert the > user > that they have both tag_style set and short_open_tags and/or asp_tags set > on. > > If an htaccess or httpd.conf directive explicitly calls for short_tags or > asp_tags after tag_style was explicitly set a warning of some sort is > thrown > informing the user that they must switch that declaration to one compatible > with the php.ini file. > > The upshot of this is to allow distributions that want to use short tags to > be able to use them without worrying about local server settings. Also, > distributions can be made to contain files without any tags at all. > Teaching IDE's that it is possible for a PHP file to have no <?php ?> tags > could be tricky though. > > On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 3:23 AM, Arvids Godjuks <arvids.godj...@gmail.com > >wrote: > > > It's essentially the same what I said - move it out of stort_tags and > > make it "On" permanently. > > > > As I remember the decision to remove short_tags was made together with > > register_globals, magic_quotes and other legacy stuff. I can be that I > > remember wrongly, but really do people really use <% ? > > > > 2011/5/19 Ferenc Kovacs <i...@tyrael.hu>: > > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 8:53 AM, Arvids Godjuks < > > arvids.godj...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > >> > > >> Hello. > > >> > > >> As a userland developer i'm all for it. Remove short_tags and decouple > > >> <?= from them to be in PHP core always on. > > >> > > > > > > I think that it's a little bit hasty. > > > I would propose that the short open echo should be always enabled > > > independently from the short_open_tag, and this should be documented > and > > > done with it. > > > Tyrael > > > > -- > > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > > > >
