Such code would have the .phpc extension, so it wouldn't get loaded at all by most autoloaders that aren't prepared for it I imagine.
This feature would certainly make the most sense as part of a new version of PHP that introduces other new functionality. "I'm going to use feature X in this code, which doesn't exist in version Y anyway, so I may as well take advantage of not having to type <?php anymore as well." On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 1:33 PM, John Crenshaw <johncrens...@priacta.com> wrote: > From: Tom Boutell [mailto:t...@punkave.com] >> >> On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 12:43 PM, John Crenshaw <johncrens...@priacta.com> >> wrote: >> > interoperability is somewhat reduced in the sense that all 3rd party >> > code would have to be checked for the <?php >> >> I'm not sure what you mean by this part exactly? > > Suppose a code library is written and the author writes it without the <?php > at the head of each file. Using that library in a project that opted to keep > the <?php requires adding this to the head of each file, or else ensuring > that the library is always included with the code parameter set (which could > get really messy with autoloaders.) Additionally (assuming that you modified > the code files) updating the library in the future gets really messy. It's > not the end of the world, but it's frustrating. I'd like to believe that most > library authors will be smart enough to always include the <?php for > compatibility purposes, but I'm sure some won't. > > John Crenshaw > Priacta, Inc. -- 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
