Posted by Michael on 05/28/07 18:36

On May 28, 10:05 am, "Jon Slaughter" <Jon_Slaugh...@Hotmail.com>
wrote:
> "Michael" <MichaelDMcDonn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1180370371.580860.72150@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 28, 9:24 am, Darko <darko.maksimo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On May 28, 6:09 pm, "Jon Slaughter" <Jon_Slaugh...@Hotmail.com> wrote:>
> >> "Michael" <MichaelDMcDonn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >> >news:1180368213.786423.310320@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > > Since the include function is called from within a PHP script, why
> >> > > does the included file have to identify itself as a PHP again by
> >> > > enclosing its code in <?php> ... <?>
>
> >> > > One would assume that the PHP interpreter works like any other, that
> >> > > is, it first expands all the include files, and then parses the
> >> > > resulting text. Can anyone help with an explanation?
>
> >> It's not supposed to be bracketed by <?php> and <?>, but by <?php
> >> and ?
>
> >> >. That's not necessary, though. You have to put those symbols into
>
> >> your require-d file if you want it to be understood like php code, but
> >> if you don't, it will be understood as raw output. Just like any other
> >> php file:
> >> <?php
> >> if ( $x ) {
> >> ?>
> >> some output here
> >> some output here
> >> some output here
> >> <?php
> >> } else {
> >> ?>
> >> some other output here
> >> some other output here
> >> some other output here
> >> <?php
> >> }
> >> ?>
>
> >> As for the require-d file, the same counts - if you didn't put <?php
> >> and ?> surrounding the contents of the file, they would be understood
> >> as ordinary output, not php code (which, of course, can be exactly
> >> what we wanted).
>
> >> > Because a php can contain other text such as html... the parser is only
> >> > signaled to work on the block that is inside a the php tag...
>
> >> > you ever wonder why <? php ?> looks like an html tag? cause it is!
>
> >> I wouldn't go that far to say <?php and ?> are html tags, although
> >> they do resemble them having lt and gt chars. Actually, the <? and ?>
> >> are part of xml processing instruction declaration syntax, so when we
> >> say "<?php" we say "give the following contents to php", and when we
> >> say "?>", we actually say "those contents end here". So, php code is
> >> actually organized as xml document, and html out of <?php ?>
> >> instructions perfectly fits in that concept, being itself a subset of
> >> xml, although older than xml.
>
> > =====================
> > I guess I'm still missing the point. Once the browser interpreter sees
> > the <?php, it assumes that all text to follow is php code until the
> > terminating token ?> is seen. Now if the include function is called
> > within the <?php ... ?>, the interpreter still assumes that any text
> > it sees is PHP. So again, I don't understand why the include text
> > needs to bracket its code in <?php ...?>. What am I missing here?
> > Thanks, MDM.
>
> Thats your problem... php has nothing to do with the browser. Its a server
> side scripting language and independent of the client.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
=============================
Yes, the text "browser interpreter" should replaced by "interpreter".
In any case, it would seem that the question is still valid. Any
comments would be appreciated.
MDM

[Back to original message]