Arvids, On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 12:46 AM, Arvids Godjuks <arvids.godj...@gmail.com>wrote:
> What happened with the proposal/RFC for expanding include/require with > additional optional second param to allow for developers to define in place > if he want's a pure PHP file to be included or a template file with direct > HTML output? > I like that proposal and take it over any other, because it gives > developer a choice. And if things do not go the right way and he ends up > screwing up somewhere - he is able to fall back to the old mode just by > modifying the include/require statement (and in a MVC framework with > autoload usage that would be 1-2 places in the whole project). > All that stuff with keywords, removing <?php tags and using special > extensions require a continuous effort from the developers, additional > support from the IDE/editors/other tools. Do we really need all that just > to give people the ability to load their scripts as a pure PHP code? > To my mind a modification to the include/require statements is all there > is required to add that extra thing that Kris want's so badly and does not > require to change your habbits, IDE templates, waiting for IDE/editors/WEB > source code highlight libraries/source analyzers/etc to catch up with the > change. > There is also a question I just raised that is not yet answered that the > keyword/extension thing can just break the valid performance tweak > technique, that is used extensively in any project with big code base. > That may very well be the method proposed in my RFC, too. I haven't made up my mind on that point as I'd like to cover the pros/cons a little more in depth (including the potential perf issue you just raised). A handler approach or something similar will still be necessary as well, since one key reason for my RFC was to make it so that these scripts could be executed directly via the webserver. But as for determining how PHP itself can identify a .phpp file, I think the three best options are: Create new tags, create new keywords, or create new parameters to existing keywords. I keep bouncing back and forth on which one I think is best, which tells me that I need to hear more debate on that. Thoughts? --Kris
