On Apr 9, 2012, at 9:16 AM, Tom Boutell <t...@punkave.com> wrote:
> It sounds like you are proposing to gradually kill the use of PHP for
> templating entirely, which I don't think is something people would
> vote for.
I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that PHP code should be clearly
separated from template code. <?php should be optional at the start of
the file and IF a keyword should be added it should be for templates
and short-tags.
99% of modern PHP code is going to be classes that start with <?php
and omit the ending ?> (since PHP 5 due to how easy it is for white
space to end up on the tail end of a file). this is even the case with
procedural code.
Half the PHP frameworks out there have their own template engine
because they can do a lot more than what short tags offer. Example:
Twig offers template inheritance.
Introducing a keyword for PHP code without the <?php tag is
impractical. It makes much more sense to have a keyword for templates.
For non-template code the starting <?php tag should always work as it
has before for backwards compatibility. The difference is you cannot
use ?> and text before the opening <?php tag is either ignored or
throws an error.
> I sometimes use perfectly good older frameworks that do use
> .php files for templating in a reasonable way, and I'm one of the
> advocates for migrating away from starting everything with <?php. I
> would have to vote against it myself.
And those files can be included with something like require_template
or you can turn off the option in the ini file.
The point is in EITHER MODE a php file that starts with <?php will
work as it did before. The new mode would just disallow you to break
out of PHP code with ?>.
> There's no reason to kill good
> code that passes its tests just because it uses inline HTML. I won't
> even know I have that code in my project from some third party library
> until I find out the hard way. No, just no. (:
I'm not trying to kill anything. In fact what I'm proposing would be a
smooth transition to something that is already done. The difference is
at some point you won't be able to do this:
<?php
class Object
{
public function output()
{
?>
Print me!
<?php
}
}
I cringe every time I see this. There is no excuse since we have here/nowdocs.
For people that use PHP as a template there can be other options. I'm
not totally against a new keyword, but I am against a new keyword for
including normal PHP code. It just doesn't make sense. No matter what
you name it (require_code, require_file, require_path) it's damned
confusing. If you did it the other way around its much clearer:
require_template.
With require_template you're also free to expand template
functionality while keeping code clearly separated.
> I did propose one new keyword, but by proposing one keyword with a
> future-friendly syntax instead of four new keywords I'm attempting to
> help with the pollution problem.
It's not as much as adding a keyword as it is what keyword you're adding.
I hope the way I've explained things makes sense.
Luke
>
> On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 11:43 AM, Luke Scott <l...@cywh.com> wrote:
>> Tom,
>>
>> As I've said before I don't think new keywords are the answer. They
>> will just pollute the language even further.
>>
>> I also don't think an ini setting is a bad thing either. It is often
>> used in PHP as a way to transition from way of doing things to
>> another. First you introduce it with it being off by default, then on
>> by default, then deprecate the old behavior. It's quite normal in
>> PHP's history.
>>
>> In another email someone mentioned doing two rfcs. In both cases are
>> we talking about removing <?php ? Because it's become somewhat
>> confusing to keep track of what is being talked about. If that is the
>> case, continue reading.
>>
>> I would prefer the starting <?php tag be optional rather than removed.
>> Just explicitly forbid the ending ?> tag and treat text before the
>> opening <?php tag differently. Perhaps ignore it (rather than print)
>> or throw an error.
>>
>> That is at least how I would prefer the "code" mode as most
>> non-template files only start with <?php. It allows for backwards
>> compatibility.
>>
>> If you must add keywords it should be something like require_template
>> NOT require_code/require_file. Templates are the exception, not the
>> norm.
>>
>> Luke Scott
>>
>> On Apr 8, 2012, at 9:32 AM, Tom Boutell <t...@punkave.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I have written an RFC proposing backwards-compatible support for
>>> source files without an opening <?php tag:
>>>
>>> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/source_files_without_opening_tag
>>>
>>> This RFC is not yet listed at https://wiki.php.net/rfc. I am not sure
>>> what the requirements are to get it added to the "Under Discussion"
>>> session and get the ball rolling formally. Please enlighten and I'll
>>> do whatever is required.
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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
>>>
>
>
>
> --
> 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
>
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
