Woops ok, you're right about that. So then, the short open tag is still just <?? (that last question mark is punctuation ;P)
--Kris On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 7:44 PM, Adam Jon Richardson <adamj...@gmail.com>wrote: > On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 7:03 PM, Kris Craig <kris.cr...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Certainly. I don't believe this is about "inclusion" any more than >> creating a function called "ech" as an alias for "echo" would be. The <? >> tag, as you all know, creates problems when working with XML. Furthermore, >> I've never understood the "it's easier to read" argument since I've found >> it to be exactly the opposite. The <? as opposed to <?php, at least for >> me, makes it more difficult to "at a glance" see where the PHP code begins >> (i.e. it's smaller and more ambiguous). Also, since many hosts disable it >> by default, getting apps/frameworks that use them working can be an added >> pain. >> >> On the other hand, considering how verbose many of our function names >> are, I've never understood why the extra 3 characters (or 2 now that it's >> <?=) is such a burden that we have to deal with all the above annoyances >> instead. Like I said, other than the fraction of a second it takes to type >> "php", I really don't see any value in this. >> > > The tag <?= isn't a short version for <?php or <?. The <?= allows you to > echo output, so these two examples are equivalent: > > <?php echo $var; ?> > > <?= $var ?> > > http://www.php.net/manual/en/ini.core.php#ini.short-open-tag > > Before 5.4, turning off short tags turned off the shorthand echo tag, too. > The value I referenced was regarding the echo form of the tag (<?=), the > form of the tag Lester was troubleshooting. With 5.4, this will no longer > be a concern, as the echo form will always be available. > > Adam >
