Tom, On Apr 10, 2012, at 6:48 AM, Tom Boutell <t...@punkave.com> wrote:
> The "second part" in the RFC is just a suggested filename convention, > it is not a hardcoded requirement. I'm not sure that's what you're > talking about here. > > The RFC I'm referring to does not propose completely removing the > availability of the <?php tag. There are two RFCs active. Please see: > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/source_files_without_opening_tag I would prefer to use the existing require/include/include_once/require_once keywords. Just add a second optional parameter to each. Also since these keywords are constructs it would be better to used or'd constants rather than an array. Luke > > On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 8:55 AM, Rafael Kassner <kass...@gmail.com> wrote: >> IMHO, both parts can be separated. My personal opinion: the require_path >> with the php mode only can be useful, a mime type or extension for these >> files too, but I'm not sure about removing "<?php". Maybe splitting it, the >> first part can be approved sooner than the second, or maybe the entire RFC >> would not be approved because the second. >> >> On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 9:35 AM, Tom Boutell <t...@punkave.com> wrote: >>> >>> An important clarification: the RFC has two parts, NOT two options. >>> Yasuo Ohgaki made many edits to the RFC before deciding to create his >>> own RFC. He backed out most of his edits but somewhere along the line >>> he introduced the words "Option 1" and "Option 2" for two things that >>> are meant to go tegether. The intention is to have both the new >>> functionality (the require_path keyword, or whatever that evolves >>> into) AND a strongly encouraged naming convention for PHP files of the >>> two types (see my original draft). >>> >>> I have corrected the RFC to read as intended. >>> >>> I'll be updating it with a second version shortly but wanted to clear >>> up this confusion first. >>> >>> (I think it would be best for RFCs to have a single author of group of >>> authors who are in agreement about the intent of the RFC. Proposing an >>> alternative RFC, as Yasuo Ohgaki is now doing, is a much less >>> confusing way to put forward a concept the original author does not >>> agree with.) >>> >>> -- >>> 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 >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Atenciosamente, >> Rafael Kassner >> > > > > -- > 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 > -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
