I'm +1 on this. <?php isn't a *huge* issue, but it is a bit of an annoyance. 'phpc' would help fix that up IMO.
On Saturday, 7 April 2012 at 11:26 PM, Tom Boutell wrote: > Now that the flamewar has died down a little I'd like to try to have a > civil discussion about this idea - *without* my admittedly > inflammatory suggestion to kill <?php altogether. > > So here is what I am seriously suggesting: > > * The default behavior doesn't change. The parser starts out in HTML mode. > > * If the CLI sees a .phpc file extension, the parser starts out in PHP > mode (no opening <?php is required). It is still possible to shift > into HTML mode after that with ?>. > > * If a require/include statement sees a .phpc file extension, the > parser starts out in PHP mode. > > * If mod_php and FPM are able to see the path (I'm honestly not sure > if they can or not), they look for .phpc as their indication to start > out in PHP mode. If that's not possible then new options are defined > to allow Apache to be configured to tell mod_php and/or FPM to do the > right thing based on mime types etc. > > This way .php continues to behave exactly as it does today, and can > interoperate smoothly with code that uses .phpc. .phpc can require > .php and vice versa. They are friends. > > Thoughts? > > -- > Tom Boutell > P'unk Avenue > 215 755 1330 > punkave.com (http://punkave.com) > window.punkave.com (http://window.punkave.com) > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > >
