Yes, those points (keep the same keywords, optional second parameter, OR'd constants) have been made a few times, and I plan to edit the RFC accordingly.
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 10:53 AM, Luke Scott <l...@cywh.com> wrote: > 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 >> -- 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
