Hey guys, can we move the RFC updates back to the threads for each RFC? Subsequent discussion should go there as well.
--Kris On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 2:30 PM, Tom Boutell <t...@punkave.com> wrote: > This has been added in version 1.1.1 of the > source_files_without_opening_tag RFC: > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/source_files_without_opening_tag > > On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 5:25 PM, Tom Boutell <t...@punkave.com> wrote: > > I think the 'as' solution is smart. > > > > On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 3:54 PM, Kris Craig <kris.cr...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 12:51 PM, Nikita Popov < > nikita....@googlemail.com>wrote: > >> > >>> On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 9:39 PM, Rick WIdmer < > vch...@developersdesk.com> > >>> wrote: > >>> > On 4/16/2012 1:02 PM, Kris Craig wrote: > >>> >> > >>> >> On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 10:31 AM, Rick > >>> >> WIdmer<vch...@developersdesk.com>wrote: > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> More important include doesn't currently allow multiple parms: > >>> >>> > >>> >>> include "foo.bar", 'baz'; > >>> >>> > >>> >>> Parse error: syntax error, unexpected ',' in bla.php on line xx > >>> >> Regarding include/require, I agree that any BC break would be > extremely > >>> >> minimal. In the 10+ years I've been developing PHP, I don't think > I've > >>> >> ever once seen somebody include multiple scripts on a single line (I > >>> >> wasn't even aware that such a thing was allowed). > >>> > See above. It is not allowed now. > >>> > >>> I think there is a misunderstanding here. Inclusions with two > >>> arguments are currently not allowed, yes. The point is that adding > >>> such a second argument would make the grammar ambiguous. > >>> > >>> E.g, consider this: > >>> > >>> func(include 'foo', $someThing); > >>> > >>> Currently this is interpreted as the return value of 'foo' and the > >>> variable $someThing being passed to func. > >>> > >>> If you add a second argument it's unclear what this does. Is this a > >>> two-argument include? I.e. should it be interpreted as > >>> > >>> func((include 'foo', $someThing)); > >>> > >>> Or is this a one-argument include and should be interpreted as > >>> > >>> func((include 'foo'), $someThing); > >>> > >>> In my eyes such an ambiguity renders any proposal to add another > >>> argument to include completely unacceptable. > >>> > >>> The only option is to add a dedicated syntax for it like > >>> > >>> include 'foo' as $flags; > >>> > >>> Nikita > >>> > >>> -- > >>> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > >>> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > >>> > >>> > >> Hmm I like that idea. Anyone see any downsides to using "as" instead of > >> comma delination? > >> > >> --Kris > > > > > > > > -- > > Tom Boutell > > P'unk Avenue > > 215 755 1330 > > punkave.com > > window.punkave.com > > > > -- > 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 > >
