,'class MyProject_');
>
> class UseMacro
> {
>PF preSave($object)
>{
> //...
>}
>
> }
>
> SCOPE_CLASS Internal
> {
>
> }
>
> I don know if there is a RFC for this feature.
>
--
Nicolas A. Bérard-Nault (nic...@gmail.com)
tectures. A
little performance boost would not do any harm.
+1.
> --
> Gustavo Lopes
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
--
Nicolas A. Bérard-Nault (nic...@gmail.com)
eption of E_ALL and possibly E_NONE if it gets added. I would avoid
> adding more E_* constants which don't represent a single channel. I
> would find it confusing.
>
> 2c
>
> --
> Giovanni Giacobbi
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>
--
Nicolas A. Bérard-Nault (nic...@gmail.com)
I think Rasmus summarized pretty well the essence of the initial decision
that was made to include short tags. After getting all these precisions, I'm
more inclined to the statut quo side, not that my opinion really matters,
but I just feel there is no consensus right now and that this discussion
On 4/14/07, Tijnema ! <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I've seen the craziest things around, i've seen
hosting providers that had ASP and PHP both parsing every file, not
only .php or .asp, but also .html etc.
But they also had ASP tags enabled in PHP, and people got trouble
executing their ASP scrip
Maybe I'm missing something here, but why should PHP be compliant with a
standard that absolutely has nothing to do with the language (c.f.: XML) ?
Isn't it obvious that a file with the extension .php is NOT an XML file ? It
seems to me the short tags issue is starting to become a bikeshed
argumen
