On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 10:10 PM, Kris Craig <kris.cr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This shouldn't be used to load libraries that dump raw HTML output! That
> literally defeats the entire purpose. You're also assuming that all PHP
> developers do 100% of their coding through pre-existing frameworks.
Consider a .phpp file that includes a .php template file when it sees
fit, in a render() method. How is this different from an echo()
statement? It's not. It's just a convenient form in some situations.
By punting these out to .php files we achieve better separation of
concerns while still respecting PHP's history as a template language
(and possible future if it improves in that area, which it may).
All I want is to stop typing <?php and dealing with whitespace
screwups above <?php. I want to do that in a way that's practical and
interoperable and which people might be able to vote for if they have
a nontrivial amount of legacy code in their life, like everybody I
work with (:
As many have pointed out, plain php template files work for some
projects. A viable RFC that people might actually vote for should
respect that. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg if someone
wants to include .php template files from a .phpp file. I don't have
to do it.
When you consider that I would be completely unable to use an existing
.php library of nontrival code like Amazon's S3 SDK under your
proposal without a convoluted workaround it is pretty much a certainty
that I would have to vote no if the RFC read that way.
> (Main Script)
> |
> |
> [Included .php/HTML Script]
> | |
> | |
> {Included .phpp Script} [Included .php/HTML Script from
> Framework/Library]
This is convoluted and forces me to write a .php frontend. Surely that
is not your goal.
--
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
