On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 4:46 PM, David Muir <davidkm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 13/04/12 09:38, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote: > > Hi, > > > > 2012/4/13 Kris Craig <kris.cr...@gmail.com>: > >> Per recent discussions, I have drafted an RFC for this. This proposal > >> offers what I believe to be a more sane and realistic approach to > >> addressing the question of incorporating a new breed of tag-less PHP > >> scripts. > >> > >> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/phpp > > This may work for LFI issue for new codes. > > Few questions. > > > > CLI may use .phpp as PHP script always. (i.e. execute w/o <?php or else) > > It's like DOS, though. > > > > How do you enforce .phpp as script only for Web? > > Is it a rule for configuration? or .phpp just never supposed to locate > > under docroot? > > It relates previous question. How about bootstrap script for frameworks? > > > >> A regular .php script cannot be included from a .phpp script. An > E_WARNING will be thrown for include and an E_RECOVERABLE_ERROR will be > thrown for require; in both instances, the included file will be ignored. > > Some people may try to make .phpp handled by web. > > I cannot tell if this setting is going to be popular, but if it > > does, isn't it the end of embedded PHP? > > It might be good if PHP is more tolerant for this usage. > > > > Regards, > > > > -- > > Yasuo Ohgaki > > yohg...@ohgaki.net > > > > That's a huge WTF that a templating library can't be written as .phpp, > because it then won't be able to load a template. > That's actually not true. Please refer to the diagram embedded in the RFC. Basically, you can load a template just fine-- you just can't do it directly from a .phpp file, which you shouldn't be doing, anyway. The .phpp file is, at least for the most part, intended to be included from a regular .php file, which also would include whatever you're using for your templates. In other words, they can interact just fine; you just can't put the template upstream from a .phpp file in the include stack-- which, again, you really shouldn't be doing, anyway, as it's just bad architecture. > > David >
