Wouldn't this be a significant performance hit when multiplied by every class file in a project?
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 10:15 AM, Matthew Weier O'Phinney <weierophin...@php.net> wrote: > On 2012-04-13, David Muir <davidkm...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 13/04/12 14:55, Stas Malyshev wrote: >> > > If this is a pecl module library developers cannot use it and trust >> > > that on php 5.n, it just works. That would fork the language in an >> > > undesirable way. It should be a core feature, no ini flag, no >> > > sometimes-there module. >> > PHP 5.n is at least a year away, wide adoption of it - more like 5 years >> > away. So if you want to write code that would run anywhere (as opposed >> > on systems you control) you'd have to wait minimum 5 years. Wouldn't it >> > better to have it earlier? >> > OTOH, requiring extensions is a common thing for applications, and any >> > pecl extension is one command away for most setups, or one download away >> > for others. And can be made work even in 5.2 if desired. >> >> Can't it also be handled using streams to inject a leading <?php to the >> file prior to inclusion? A PECL extension would then just make it run a >> bit faster. > > I made this very suggestion earlier this week (we do this in ZF1 to > emulate short tag support for those who use them). > > -- > Matthew Weier O'Phinney > Project Lead | matt...@zend.com > Zend Framework | http://framework.zend.com/ > PGP key: http://framework.zend.com/zf-matthew-pgp-key.asc > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > -- 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
