2 ms·

I pity your co-workers. What is the "assumption" I'm making? That my .php files will only have php code? YES! That's correct! Because we're not co-mingling PHP

I pity your co-workers. What is the "assumption" I'm making? That my .php files will only have php code? YES! That's correct! Because we're not co-mingling PHP and HTML like it's 1999. There is absolutely zero valid reason to have a PHP closing tag at the end of a PHP-only script. Zero. End of discussion.

contingencies 14y ago
OK, this is a semi-valid train of thought. It certainly beats the "in case of extra whitespace!" line. And, on the face of it, it seems logical. Unfortunately, it's not very good practice, for the reasons I have already outlined around relying on assumptions. (Edit: Oh, you missed the assumption - that the PHP interpreter will deal with your laziness) For just one example, assume I have one file that produces a header, one file with some static content, and one file that produces a footer. For some reason, I want to refactor them in to a single file. With explicit close, I can just concatenate the files. With the leave it out method (or, "look mom I saved two keystrokes after my MegaSillyStupidIndentFactoryClassMethod!"), you wind up with parser issues. In short: If you want files with just PHP code in them, write files with just PHP code in them, and feed them to the PHP interpreter. If you want files with open tags in them, then use close tags. "zero end of discussion i win mirror haha". Child.
- stephenr 14y ago
  If the files use mode switching and generate markup, feel free to put a closing ?> at the end of the php in that file. It's a template and it's expected that you would be switching in and out of html/php modes. The recommendation is to not put them at the end of files that declare symbols, e.g. class files (or function files if you're allergic to OOP), as those files shouldn't have html mode output anyway.

2 ms·

I pity your co-workers. What is the "assumption" I'm making? That my .php files will only have php code? YES! That's correct! Because we're not co-mingling PHP

by encoderer 14y ago

contingencies 14y ago
OK, this is a semi-valid train of thought. It certainly beats the "in case of extra whitespace!" line. And, on the face of it, it seems logical. Unfortunately, it's not very good practice, for the reasons I have already outlined around relying on assumptions. (Edit: Oh, you missed the assumption - that the PHP interpreter will deal with your laziness) For just one example, assume I have one file that produces a header, one file with some static content, and one file that produces a footer. For some reason, I want to refactor them in to a single file. With explicit close, I can just concatenate the files. With the leave it out method (or, "look mom I saved two keystrokes after my MegaSillyStupidIndentFactoryClassMethod!"), you wind up with parser issues. In short: If you want files with just PHP code in them, write files with just PHP code in them, and feed them to the PHP interpreter. If you want files with open tags in them, then use close tags. "zero end of discussion i win mirror haha". Child.
- stephenr 14y ago
  If the files use mode switching and generate markup, feel free to put a closing ?> at the end of the php in that file. It's a template and it's expected that you would be switching in and out of html/php modes. The recommendation is to not put them at the end of files that declare symbols, e.g. class files (or function files if you're allergic to OOP), as those files shouldn't have html mode output anyway.