Responses inline per your request. --Kris
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 3:32 AM, Reindl Harald <h.rei...@thelounge.net>wrote: > Am 06.03.2012 01:13, schrieb Kris Craig: > > On Windows (where I generally do most of my scripting grunt work), > > I typically use Notepad++ and it highlights > > <?php just fine. > > > > On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 4:11 PM, Reindl Harald > > <h.rei...@thelounge.net<mailto: > h.rei...@thelounge.net>> wrote: > > Am 06.03.2012 01:03, schrieb Kris Craig: > > > 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 > > > > if you hvae a usebale editor <?=$whatever?> would become different > colors > > only in notepad or on the shell you would not see php-code but > > who does develop this way these days? > > FIRST: > do NOT top post after get a reply below your text > or how do you imagine that anybody can follow a > thread where answers randomly before and after > the quotet text? > Sorry. Sometimes I forget that there are some people out there who still use legacy non-threaded inboxes. I would recommend you consider switching to Gmail or some other email client/service that supports threaded views. That will make it a lot easier for you to follow these threads. =) > > SECOND: > it is simply clear that it highlights "<?php" - what do you try to tell me? > what i said is "throw it away if it does NOT highlight "<?=$var?>" > > the "<?=$var?>" is much easier readable as "<?php echo $var;?>" > > > To clarify again, I was under the mistaken impression that <?= was a new alias for short_open_tag. My argument was (and still is) against short_open_tag. I do see some use in this new echo alias for templating purposes. --Kris
