On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 7:59 PM, Kris Craig <kris.cr...@gmail.com> wrote: > Tom, > > Much better, though I'm still very troubled by allowing non-pure PHP code to > be mixed-in with pure PHP (by means of includes). The problem I have with > this, as a developer, is that this means I can't really trust that what I > will get from a "pure PHP" script will actually be pure PHP, because > non-pure scripts lower in the stack might mix-in HTML code that would then > get passed up through the stack. These really shouldn't be mixed anyway, so > I'm just not seeing any value in not keeping this separation consistent.
The approach you suggest would make it impossible to load an existing library of perfectly good classes from a newer framework. I don't know anyone who would be able to get work done under those circumstances (: It would lead to almost no adoption of the new feature. Whereas if we make this feature easy to adopt, and strict within the files it does apply to, then over time we would see more and more .phpp and less and less .php. Mission accomplished. Sometimes a realistic compromise is the long term way to get to a better place. Think through what will likely happen in the real world under various proposals, and not just what would be most pure (: -- 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
