<?php is a simple and effective way to enter "php mode". File extensions are really irrelevant.
This isn't a sensible idea. On Sat, Apr 7, 2012 at 2:44 PM, Reindl Harald <h.rei...@thelounge.net> wrote: > you are not making valid points > you are proposing DANGEROUS changes! > > what happens if PHP 5.4.x will follow your wishes > (what never will happen) and your file without > <?php will be called on a machine with a lower > php-version? > > what you also do not realize is that the world is not turning > around your windows machine - in the unix world extensions > are meaningless - the sheabing and execute permissions are > the only things controlling if a zexzfile is executeable > and with which interpreter this happens > > and no the world is not turning around you or even around PHP > this is how unix-systems and shells are working and there > is no place for funny execptions in this world > > > Am 07.04.2012 15:39, schrieb Tom Boutell: >> From the viewpoint of someone writing reusable classes, the need to >> start with <?php and reprimand anybody who accidentally puts a newline >> above it is a silly annoyance they don't experience with other tools. >> >> That said, you are making valid points, I'm not convinced myself that >> "file extensions" necessarily should or could be determined in every >> context. But it seems the most viable way of addressing the issue - if >> a viable way even exists. Partly I want to convince myself that this >> either can or can't ever be improved, and move on either way (: >> >> On Sat, Apr 7, 2012 at 9:35 AM, Crocodile <crocodil...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> 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 >>>> >>> >> >> >> > > -- > > Mit besten Grüßen, Reindl Harald > the lounge interactive design GmbH > A-1060 Vienna, Hofmühlgasse 17 > CTO / software-development / cms-solutions > p: +43 (1) 595 3999 33, m: +43 (676) 40 221 40 > icq: 154546673, http://www.thelounge.net/ > > http://www.thelounge.net/signature.asc.what.htm > -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
