Hello, Tom... Are you seriously that bothered with '<?php' at the top of your classes? Are you serious when talking changing reguire/include behaviour just to satisfy your wish?
To be also serious, I would mention the possibility of including URLs. There is no such thing as file name extension in URLs. Thus your idea should be forgot. Personally, I really think 1st of April is like continuing in the internals mailing list... 2012/4/7 Tom Boutell <t...@punkave.com> > 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 > window.punkave.com > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > >
