On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 8:45 AM, Rasmus Lerdorf <ras...@lerdorf.com> wrote:
> On 04/11/2012 08:12 AM, Luke Scott wrote: > > Tom has a "similar" RFC that has two modes: > > > > - Template mode - how it is now > > - Code (or pure code) mode - <?php is only allowed at the top and is > > optional. ?> is disallowed. > > > > Tom's RFC calls for template mode to remain the default, but allow you > > to add a flag to require/include to interpret the script in "pure > > mode". Allowing an optional starting <?php (only at top) maintains > > backwards compatibility with most classes. > > And my objection to that is similar. An optional templating mode is the > same as optional short_tags. it discourages template mode the same way > short_tags are discouraged. For short_tags that discouragement makes > sense. For templating it doesn't. > I have some objections to that RFC as well, but one question that comes to my mind is, does allowing a "pure code" PHP mode really *discourage* use of templating mode; and, if so, how? From an MVC architectural standpoint, I can actually see some benefit in having a type of code-only PHP file, though Tom's current RFC negates that by allowing HTML bits to be included upstream so I'll probably be voting it down anyway. But conceptually, at least, I think the idea has some merit IMHO. --Kris > > -Rasmus > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > >
