[PHP-BUG] Req #61182 [NEW]: Assume Opening PHP Tag
From: Operating system: PHP version: 5.4.0RC8 Package: *Configuration Issues Bug Type: Feature/Change Request Bug description:Assume Opening PHP Tag Description: PHP is probably the only language I know which requires an opening tag (i.e . In the early days, when web pages were mostly static, and PHP was used to add dynamic elements, it made sense to require an opening tag to drop-into PHP execution. These days however, the opposite is more often the case. You normally have a complete PHP web application, into which HTML and other static text is inject, rather than injecting dynamic elements into static web pages. What I'd like to see is a new directive added to php.ini. Call it what you want, e.g. assume_open_tag or omit_open_tag. This would require a few changes in coding practice. For example, if omit_open_tag is On, then the behaviour of the include() and require() constructs will change. They too will assume the files being required contain PHP from line 1. Programmer will not longer be able to use include() and require() to load file contents, instead the programmer would have to use file_get_contents or some other alternative, though this would arguably a good thing, as using require() and include() to load and output non-php could be vulnerability, hence it's already bad practice to use include/require() to load non-PHP files. I think this change would be consistant with some of the changes made in 5.4 which demonstrates PHP embracing modern programming idioms from other languages. Ideally, I'd like this to become the default behaviour of PHP, though obviously for at least the first major release, it would of course be defaulted to Off. Thoughts? -- Edit bug report at https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=61182&edit=1 -- Try a snapshot (PHP 5.4): https://bugs.php.net/fix.php?id=61182&r=trysnapshot54 Try a snapshot (PHP 5.3): https://bugs.php.net/fix.php?id=61182&r=trysnapshot53 Try a snapshot (trunk): https://bugs.php.net/fix.php?id=61182&r=trysnapshottrunk Fixed in SVN: https://bugs.php.net/fix.php?id=61182&r=fixed Fixed in SVN and need be documented: https://bugs.php.net/fix.php?id=61182&r=needdocs Fixed in release: https://bugs.php.net/fix.php?id=61182&r=alreadyfixed Need backtrace: https://bugs.php.net/fix.php?id=61182&r=needtrace Need Reproduce Script: https://bugs.php.net/fix.php?id=61182&r=needscript Try newer version: https://bugs.php.net/fix.php?id=61182&r=oldversion Not developer issue: https://bugs.php.net/fix.php?id=61182&r=support Expected behavior: https://bugs.php.net/fix.php?id=61182&r=notwrong Not enough info: https://bugs.php.net/fix.php?id=61182&r=notenoughinfo Submitted twice: https://bugs.php.net/fix.php?id=61182&r=submittedtwice register_globals: https://bugs.php.net/fix.php?id=61182&r=globals PHP 4 support discontinued: https://bugs.php.net/fix.php?id=61182&r=php4 Daylight Savings:https://bugs.php.net/fix.php?id=61182&r=dst IIS Stability: https://bugs.php.net/fix.php?id=61182&r=isapi Install GNU Sed: https://bugs.php.net/fix.php?id=61182&r=gnused Floating point limitations: https://bugs.php.net/fix.php?id=61182&r=float No Zend Extensions: https://bugs.php.net/fix.php?id=61182&r=nozend MySQL Configuration Error: https://bugs.php.net/fix.php?id=61182&r=mysqlcfg
Req #61182 [Opn]: Assume Opening PHP Tag
Edit report at https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=61182&edit=1 ID: 61182 User updated by: tom at tomwardrop dot com Reported by: tom at tomwardrop dot com Summary:Assume Opening PHP Tag Status: Open Type: Feature/Change Request Package:*Configuration Issues PHP Version:5.4.0RC8 Block user comment: N Private report: N New Comment: Are there not other directives that can break a lot of code? Remember, this would default to off. I don't see why as a server owner, I should have this option made unavailable purely because it can break other code. If you wanted to write code that worked regardless of this setting, you could do something like: Of course, for that to work then implicit_open_tag is On, the parser would have to ignore the "". This would be shorthand for opening and closing a php tag, and should be placed at the top of any template file that has the requirement to work regardless of whether the opening tag is optional. I hope this idea isn't dismissed on the grounds that it's difficult to implement, because I think it's workable. Having optional opening tags would no doubt be a step in the right direction for PHP, and I'm sure that if you didn't have backwards compatible to be concerned about, you'd probably make opening tags implicit with no option to make it otherwise. As I said earlier, the decision to make the opening tag explicit was desirable at the time PHP was conceived, but I believe it's one of those legacy decisions that needs to be re- evaluated. Previous Comments: [2012-02-25 08:50:31] ras...@php.net So this would basically be a "break all existing code" .ini switch? I don't think that is a good idea. -------------------- [2012-02-25 08:37:03] tom at tomwardrop dot com Description: PHP is probably the only language I know which requires an opening tag (i.e . In the early days, when web pages were mostly static, and PHP was used to add dynamic elements, it made sense to require an opening tag to drop-into PHP execution. These days however, the opposite is more often the case. You normally have a complete PHP web application, into which HTML and other static text is inject, rather than injecting dynamic elements into static web pages. What I'd like to see is a new directive added to php.ini. Call it what you want, e.g. assume_open_tag or omit_open_tag. This would require a few changes in coding practice. For example, if omit_open_tag is On, then the behaviour of the include() and require() constructs will change. They too will assume the files being required contain PHP from line 1. Programmer will not longer be able to use include() and require() to load file contents, instead the programmer would have to use file_get_contents or some other alternative, though this would arguably a good thing, as using require() and include() to load and output non-php could be vulnerability, hence it's already bad practice to use include/require() to load non-PHP files. I think this change would be consistant with some of the changes made in 5.4 which demonstrates PHP embracing modern programming idioms from other languages. Ideally, I'd like this to become the default behaviour of PHP, though obviously for at least the first major release, it would of course be defaulted to Off. Thoughts? -- Edit this bug report at https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=61182&edit=1
Req #61182 [Opn]: Assume Opening PHP Tag
Edit report at https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=61182&edit=1
ID: 61182
User updated by: tom at tomwardrop dot com
Reported by: tom at tomwardrop dot com
Summary:Assume Opening PHP Tag
Status: Open
Type: Feature/Change Request
Package:*Configuration Issues
PHP Version:5.4.0RC8
Block user comment: N
Private report: N
New Comment:
It's not just about the extra characters, but like the end ?> tag (which
thankfully is optional), any white-space or otherwise non-printable characters
before the opening tag can cause "headers sent" issues. You could solve that
problem by implementing the ignore white-space rule I've already mentioned,
where any white-space before the opening tag is ignored.
The more I think about this and talk to the others, the more it becomes
apparent
that what I'm actually asking for, is a distinction to made between PHP
templates, and PHP scripts/applications. If PHP were to define these two
distinct concepts, then you could do more than just make the opening tag
optional. For example, you could have a template() or render() method to act as
an include() for php templates. Unlike include() however, this render() method
would return the output of the file, instead of sending it straight to the
browser. This would negate the need to capture template output using the output
buffer functions (something that I believe most frameworks end up using).
Making such a distinction would also allow web servers like Apache to treat PHP
files differently. You may create a rule in Apache to render all .phpt files as
PHP templates, rendering everything else as PHP script or application files. We
may then see mod_php implement an application mode, where one can define a
single-point of entry into their application. This could have flow-on
performance benefits, where mod_php could cache the parsed PHP, then either
fork
it on each request, or instantiate a new application class. Such a feature
would
mean frameworks wouldn't have to stuff around with .htaccess files, and would
mean that programmers don't need to add the following to the top of all their
files: if (defined('SOME_CONSTANT')) exit;
While there's momentum among the PHP developers to move forward with
modernising
the language, I think now would be a good idea to consider some of these more
fundamental changes. PHP's built-in template engine, ease of deployment, and
it's dynamic, traditional OO constructs would still remain PHP's strengths.
With all this said, I'd be happy to save such changes to a major release
intended to break legacy code, like PHP 6. I'd like to keep in mind too that
code portability isn't relevant to most people who don't intend to release
their
code as open source. Typically, those people using PHP in a business context
have control of their server. It's only shared hosting environments where
portability becomes a potential issue. All I'm saying is don't rule out ideas
based on the lowest common denominator.
Previous Comments:
[2012-02-25 14:12:03] phpmpan at mpan dot pl
After a bit of thinking I came to a conclusion that PHARs can, in theory, have
such thing implemented. Some metadata may be included in PHAR to tell PHP that
every source file in the archive assumes "" tag. Thought it's used to *enable*
`assume_open_tag`. But, if you want to use it to disable the feature, it's even
worse. This breaks lots of existing code. Mixing PHP with HTML is an example of
bad design, but there are lots of such things and PHP devs can't just say "from
today your code is not working, because we have decided to break it". Adding
some magical sequence of characters at the begining is not a solution for this
problem. Do you imagine administrators going through all of the files on their
servers and adding "" to fix the broken code? Even harder to imagine in
case of obfuscated or PHARed code.
I believe there is enough problems with server incompatibilities already. No
need to make next one. I would be much more happy to see UTF-8 to be a standard
feature on every host. A requirement to write "" at the
begining of the file to not write "" thing is optional. The problem is that virtually any
code has to use it to be portable. This means it's not really optional.
[2012-02-25 09:24:21] tom at tomwardrop dot com
Are there not other directives that can break a lot of code? Remember, this
would default to off. I don't see why as a server owner, I should have this
option made unavailable purely because it can break other code. If you wanted
to
write code that worked rega
Req #61182 [Opn]: Assume Opening PHP Tag
Edit report at https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=61182&edit=1
ID: 61182
User updated by: tom at tomwardrop dot com
Reported by: tom at tomwardrop dot com
Summary:Assume Opening PHP Tag
Status: Open
Type: Feature/Change Request
Package:*Configuration Issues
PHP Version:5.4.0RC8
Block user comment: N
Private report: N
New Comment:
I do agree with you, hence my last comment. Adding optional open tags alone
would be more hassle than it's worth, you're right. However, if PHP was to
provide more than just optional open tags, like some of the application-
orientated features I've mentioned, then the hassle would probably be worth it.
Of course, this goes beyond the scope of this feature request, but it would
make
for an interesting discussion none-the-less. PHP is overdue to receive some
kind
of application persistance so code isn't re-parsed and re-initialized after
every request.
I'm happy for this ticket to be closed, though I would love to see more thought
put into evolving PHP beyond its current template-orientated form, which lately
seems to work against developers more than it helps them.
Previous Comments:
[2012-02-26 01:47:05] phpmpan at mpan dot pl
Note: I'm NOT against the idea itself. I'm just thinking that in the current
form it can do more harm than good.
What you're asking for is redefining the whole PHP world. Let's imagine that
PHP6 includes your idea and it's *not* optional. What happens?
1. Many of PHP books become obsolete
We all know mixing code and output is bad, but the books
take this approach because it's simpler. It allows authors
to show the basic ideas of PHP without requiring the reader
to download/install third party template engine.
But if .php files are no longer templates, books need
to be rewritten. Lots of money for authors, but I think
it's not dev's goal.
2. Lots of currently used code becomes obsolete
If one needs to write code for a server that has
this feature enabled, any template-like code should
be avoided. This means we can use only "safe" libraries.
Which are "safe"? Only those for which the author states
they're compatible with `assume_open_tags`.
In other words: less code for us to use. Many things needs
to be rewritten. This is bad.
3. Admins will simply refuse to enable the feature
I love the idea of removing magic_quotes. At the same time
I believe many admins will hesitate to upgrade to PHP6,
because they have irrational belief that the magic_quotes
feature was protecting them.
Now imagine what will they do with `assume_open_tags`.
Will they enable it? Will they risk breaking already
deployed applications? I don't think so. If they're afraid
to leave their servers without magic_quote "protection",
they'll be even more scared of the fact that they can beak
something seriously by enabling `assume_open_tags`.
Setting `assume_open_tags` on per-directory basis (for example
with .htaccess in Apache) doesn't solve the problem, because
PHP libraries may be shared between multiple applications.
I believe that books should be rewritten, real template engines should be used,
we should update our code et cetera. But real life is real life. Encountering
pieces of software that were not upgraded for 20-30 years is not an uncommon
thing ("20-30yrs" does not apply to PHP, but I know apps that were not updated
since PHP4). `magic_quotes` are deprecated for years and many people seen
they're bad even earlier. There was enough time to update applications that
depends on them. And even if some code is not fixed, removing magic_quotes
doesn't make it stop working. The case of `assume_open_tags` is different. If
it's optional, it needs to become a standard to be accepted. And this should be
done quickly. I can't imagine building separate versions of libraries for
server with this feature enabled and without it. Authors will simply keep using
versions with " tag (which
thankfully is optional), any white-space or otherwise non-printable characters
before the opening tag can cause "headers sent" issues. You could solve that
problem by implementing the ignore white-space rule I've already mentioned,
where any white-space before the opening tag is ignored.
The more I think about this and talk to the others, the more it becomes
apparent
that what I'm actually asking for, is a distinction to made between PHP
templates, and PHP scripts/applications. If PHP were to define these two
distinct concepts, then you could do more than just make the opening tag
optional. For example, you could have a template() or render() method to act
Req #52504 [Com]: Support relative namespaces
Edit report at https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=52504&edit=1
ID: 52504
Comment by: tom at tomwardrop dot com
Reported by:robert dot de dot wilde at online dot nl
Summary:Support relative namespaces
Status: Open
Type: Feature/Change Request
Package:Class/Object related
Operating System: Any
PHP Version:5.3.3
Block user comment: N
Private report: N
New Comment:
I was just about to post the exact same feature suggestion. I'm using PHP 5.4
RC8
after 2 years of programming Ruby (I have a project that better lends itself to
PHP template-orientated nature), and this was one of the first things I tried
to
do, reference a resource one level up in the namespace hierarchy. Luckily, my
namespace isn't too deep, but I can imagine some of the larger frameworks which
have 3-6+ level deep namespaces could really benefit from this.
I'm surprised none of the dev's have commented on this.
Previous Comments:
[2010-08-18 15:44:12] robert dot de dot wilde at online dot nl
Any developer can have a look?
[2010-07-31 10:54:14] giorgio dot liscio at email dot it
very nice, i really like it
it would be nice too having * on import
works only if __autoload or spl_autoload_register is used, otherwise triggers
an error
use MyNS\Test\*; // imports all classes in the "Test" namespace
use MyNS\Test\**; // imports all the namespace hierarchy (including
subpackages) from namespace Test
__autoload($className, $importAll = FALSE, $importDeep = FALSE)
{
// handle * as a full dir import
// ** imports subdirs too
}
in my framework i need to put
use \FW\String;
use \FW\Int;
use \FW\Float;
use \FW\Vector;
use \FW\Dictionary;
use \FW\Types;
etc in every file...
[2010-07-31 09:58:03] robert dot de dot wilde at online dot nl
Description:
It would be nice to have relative namespace support to keep code clean and
flexible.
When inside of a namespace, it would be nice to have some directory-path-like
option like '..'.
Test script:
---
namespace MyNs\Some\Path\Going\A\Long\Way
{
class GoClass extends ..\..\Short\Way\GoClass // <<
{}
}
--
Edit this bug report at https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=52504&edit=1
#50261 [NEW]: Crash When Calling Parent Constructor with call_user_func()
From: tom at tomwardrop dot com
Operating system: Windows 7 x64
PHP version: 5.3.1
PHP Bug Type: Reproducible crash
Bug description: Crash When Calling Parent Constructor with call_user_func()
Description:
If class B, extends Class A, and class B calls Class A's constructor in
its own contructor by using call_user_func("parent", "__construct"), and if
class A's constructor is defined as the class name rather than
"__construct", then PHP seems to crash (which results in Apache 2
crashing). Problem still exists with all extensions disabled.
Reproduce code:
---
Expected result:
The above code should echo out the string 'Output string!'. This code
works correctly when "call_user_func" or "call_user_func_array" are not
used.
Actual result:
--
call_user_func() and call_user_func_array(), cause PHP and as a result,
Apache 2 to crash. When running PHP DBG debugger, the crash happens on the
execution of call_user_func() line. The Windows event log notes that
httpd.exe (apache) had crashed, blaming php5ts.dll for the fault.
--
Edit bug report at http://bugs.php.net/?id=50261&edit=1
--
Try a snapshot (PHP 5.2):
http://bugs.php.net/fix.php?id=50261&r=trysnapshot52
Try a snapshot (PHP 5.3):
http://bugs.php.net/fix.php?id=50261&r=trysnapshot53
Try a snapshot (PHP 6.0):
http://bugs.php.net/fix.php?id=50261&r=trysnapshot60
Fixed in SVN:
http://bugs.php.net/fix.php?id=50261&r=fixed
Fixed in SVN and need be documented:
http://bugs.php.net/fix.php?id=50261&r=needdocs
Fixed in release:
http://bugs.php.net/fix.php?id=50261&r=alreadyfixed
Need backtrace:
http://bugs.php.net/fix.php?id=50261&r=needtrace
Need Reproduce Script:
http://bugs.php.net/fix.php?id=50261&r=needscript
Try newer version:
http://bugs.php.net/fix.php?id=50261&r=oldversion
Not developer issue:
http://bugs.php.net/fix.php?id=50261&r=support
Expected behavior:
http://bugs.php.net/fix.php?id=50261&r=notwrong
Not enough info:
http://bugs.php.net/fix.php?id=50261&r=notenoughinfo
Submitted twice:
http://bugs.php.net/fix.php?id=50261&r=submittedtwice
register_globals:
http://bugs.php.net/fix.php?id=50261&r=globals
PHP 4 support discontinued: http://bugs.php.net/fix.php?id=50261&r=php4
Daylight Savings:http://bugs.php.net/fix.php?id=50261&r=dst
IIS Stability:
http://bugs.php.net/fix.php?id=50261&r=isapi
Install GNU Sed:
http://bugs.php.net/fix.php?id=50261&r=gnused
Floating point limitations:
http://bugs.php.net/fix.php?id=50261&r=float
No Zend Extensions:
http://bugs.php.net/fix.php?id=50261&r=nozend
MySQL Configuration Error:
http://bugs.php.net/fix.php?id=50261&r=mysqlcfg
#50261 [Opn]: Crash When Calling Parent Constructor with call_user_func()
ID: 50261
User updated by: tom at tomwardrop dot com
Reported By: tom at tomwardrop dot com
Status: Open
Bug Type: Reproducible crash
Operating System: Windows 7 x64
PHP Version: 5.3.1
New Comment:
To clarify, replacing...
call_user_func(array('parent', '__construct'));
...with...
parent::__construct();
...works as expected, hence it's definitely a problem with the
"call_user_func" and "call_user_func_array" functions.
Previous Comments:
----------------
[2009-11-22 10:05:54] tom at tomwardrop dot com
Description:
If class B, extends Class A, and class B calls Class A's constructor in
its own contructor by using call_user_func("parent", "__construct"), and
if class A's constructor is defined as the class name rather than
"__construct", then PHP seems to crash (which results in Apache 2
crashing). Problem still exists with all extensions disabled.
Reproduce code:
---
Expected result:
The above code should echo out the string 'Output string!'. This code
works correctly when "call_user_func" or "call_user_func_array" are not
used.
Actual result:
--
call_user_func() and call_user_func_array(), cause PHP and as a result,
Apache 2 to crash. When running PHP DBG debugger, the crash happens on
the execution of call_user_func() line. The Windows event log notes that
httpd.exe (apache) had crashed, blaming php5ts.dll for the fault.
--
Edit this bug report at http://bugs.php.net/?id=50261&edit=1
Req #6418 [Com]: Multiple class extends ordering error
Edit report at http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=6418&edit=1 ID: 6418 Comment by: tom at tomwardrop dot com Reported by: nathan at cjhunter dot com Summary: Multiple class extends ordering error Status: Wont fix Type: Feature/Change Request Package: Feature/Change Request Operating System: Linux 2.0.36 PHP Version: 4.0.1pl2 New Comment: I don't know the internals of PHP, but maybe someone who does can respond to this. I agree with the comment by bj...@php.net... "You need to declare the class before you use it. The other way around doesn't make sense and will not ever be supported." However, since when was declaring a class considered to be "using" a class? If possible, I propose that PHP check for the availability of extended classes and interfaces at the time an instance is created, or when the first static call is made, rather than when the class is declared. This is no doubt the most logical approach, but I have no idea whether this is technically possible to implement. We can call this feature, just-in-time class checking :-) I look forward to hearing a response from someone who knows the part of the PHP core that handles this. Previous Comments: [2007-01-07 11:26:07] bj...@php.net You need to declare the class before you use it. The other way around doesn't make sense and will not ever be supported. With the "class per file" approach you can use autoload() or spl_autoload() [2006-07-15 10:20:15] info at triin dot net I had some quite hard time figuring out what is wrong with my code - this defenetly is a bug, not a feature request. I had a lot of PHP files (class in each file) and at the beginning of each one there were the require_once statements to include all the other classes that were used by that class. And suddenly there was a weird collision... [2002-09-09 09:04:35] scallop at iki dot fi Yes, this is a feature that is definately needed in PHP. I am currently working on a project which has very complex class hierarchy (dozens of classes extending each other). Due to complex class hierarchy and the huge amount of code, I am developing classes so that each class is in it's own file. And to make it all simple, I use a small script to combine all this classes into one huge file. It is always possible to create a system that checks class dependencies and creates a combined classfile with classes in proper order. However, I think this is a feature that _should_ be provided by php. (tested on versions 4.2.3, 4.3.0 - still not implemented) I hope I explained my self clear enough. See my report (marked as duplicate): http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=19312 [2000-08-31 08:48:21] s...@php.net Yes, you cannot do this in PHP. In fact, you even shouldn't try doing this - why would you need to define class without knowing what it extends? I move it to feature request in the meantime, in case something will explain why this could be useful. [2000-08-29 12:20:10] nathan at cjhunter dot com Multiple class extends creates ordering error The below.. gives an error 'Fatal error: Class c: Cannot inherit from undefined class b in test.html on line 4', but.. works fine. I imagine this could be fixed by first ordering the classes by their given dependencies and then process them one by one. -- Edit this bug report at http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=6418&edit=1
#50261 [Csd]: Crash When Calling Parent Constructor with call_user_func()
ID: 50261 User updated by: tom at tomwardrop dot com Reported By: tom at tomwardrop dot com Status: Closed Bug Type: Reproducible crash Operating System: * PHP Version: 5.3, 6 Assigned To: dmitry New Comment: Awesome turn around time. Well done guys, and thanks. Previous Comments: [2009-11-30 11:40:07] dmi...@php.net This bug has been fixed in SVN. Snapshots of the sources are packaged every three hours; this change will be in the next snapshot. You can grab the snapshot at http://snaps.php.net/. Thank you for the report, and for helping us make PHP better. [2009-11-30 11:39:54] s...@php.net Automatic comment from SVN on behalf of dmitry Revision: http://svn.php.net/viewvc/?view=revision&revision=291488 Log: Fixed bug #50261 (Crash When Calling Parent Constructor with call_user_func()) [2009-11-24 09:22:13] tony2...@php.net Dmitry, could you take a look at it? [2009-11-23 23:07:07] s...@php.net Automatic comment from SVN on behalf of felipe Revision: http://svn.php.net/viewvc/?view=revision&revision=291248 Log: - Added test for bug #50261 [2009-11-22 18:37:37] j...@php.net In PHP_5_2 you get this error and no crash: Warning: call_user_func(parent::__construct): First argument is expected to be a valid callback.. The remainder of the comments for this report are too long. To view the rest of the comments, please view the bug report online at http://bugs.php.net/50261 -- Edit this bug report at http://bugs.php.net/?id=50261&edit=1
