我一直在读,在文件末尾使用PHP关闭标记?>是不好的做法。在下面的上下文中,头文件的问题似乎无关紧要(这是目前为止唯一一个好的参数):
现代版本的PHP在PHP .ini中设置了output_buffering标志 如果启用了输出缓冲,则可以在输出HTML后设置HTTP报头和cookie,因为返回的代码不会立即发送到浏览器。
每一本好的实践书籍和维基都以这个“规则”开始,但没有人提供好的理由。 还有其他好的理由跳过PHP结束标记吗?
我一直在读,在文件末尾使用PHP关闭标记?>是不好的做法。在下面的上下文中,头文件的问题似乎无关紧要(这是目前为止唯一一个好的参数):
现代版本的PHP在PHP .ini中设置了output_buffering标志 如果启用了输出缓冲,则可以在输出HTML后设置HTTP报头和cookie,因为返回的代码不会立即发送到浏览器。
每一本好的实践书籍和维基都以这个“规则”开始,但没有人提供好的理由。 还有其他好的理由跳过PHP结束标记吗?
当前回答
“是否有其他好的理由(除了标题问题)跳过结束php标记?”
在生成二进制输出、CSV数据或其他非html输出时,您不希望无意中输出无关的空白字符。
其他回答
除了已经说过的所有内容之外,我还将提出另一个原因,这对我们的调试来说是一个巨大的痛苦。
Apache 2.4.6和php5.4实际上在我们的生产机器上,当关闭PHP标记后面有空白时,分割错误。我只是浪费了好几个小时,直到我终于用strace缩小了虫子的范围。
下面是Apache抛出的错误:
[core:notice] [pid 7842] AH00052: child pid 10218 exit signal Segmentation fault (11)
根据文档,如果关闭标记位于文件末尾,出于以下原因,最好省略它:
如果文件是纯PHP代码,最好省略文件末尾的PHP结束标记。这可以防止在PHP结束标记之后意外地添加空白或新行,这可能会导致不必要的影响,因为当程序员在脚本中不打算发送任何输出时,PHP将启动输出缓冲。
PHP手册>语言参考>基本语法> PHP标签
这是一个新手编码风格的建议,出于善意,并由手册建议。
Eschewing ?> however solves just a trickle of the common headers already sent causes (raw output, BOM, notices, etc.) and their follow-up problems. PHP actually contains some magic to eat up single linebreaks after the ?> closing token. Albeit that has historic issues, and leaves newcomers still susceptible to flaky editors and unawarely shuffling in other whitespace after ?>. Stylistically some developers prefer to view <?php and ?> as SGML tags / XML processing instructions, implying the balance consistency of a trailing close token. (Which btw, is useful for dependency-conjoining class includes to supplant inefficient file-by-file autoloading.) Somewhat uncommonly the opening <?php is characterized as PHPs shebang (and fully feasible per binfmt_misc), thereby validating the redundancy of a corresponding close tag. There's an obvious advise discrepancy between classic PHP syntax guides mandating ?>\n and the more recent ones (PSR-2) agreeing on omission. (For the record: Zend Framework postulating one over the other does not imply its inherent superiority. It's a misconception that experts were drawn to / target audience of unwieldy APIs). SCMs and modern IDEs provide builtin solutions mostly alleviating close tag caretaking.
不鼓励使用?>结束标记只是延迟解释基本的PHP处理行为和语言语义,以避免不常见的问题。由于参与者的熟练程度不同,它对于协作软件开发仍然是实用的。
关闭标签的变化
The regular ?> close tag is also known as T_CLOSE_TAG, or thus "close token". It comprises a few more incarnations, because of PHPs magic newline eating: ?>\n (Unix linefeed) ?>\r (Carriage return, classic MACs) ?>\r\n (CR/LF, on DOS/Win) PHP doesn't support the Unicode combo linebreak NEL (U+0085) however. Early PHP versions had IIRC compile-ins limiting platform-agnosticism somewhat (FI even just used > as close marker), which is the likely historic origin of the close-tag-avoidance. Often overlooked, but until PHP7 removes them, the regular <?php opening token can be validly paired with the rarely used </script> as odd closing token. The "hard close tag" isn't even one -- just made that term up for analogy. Conceptionally and usage-wise __halt_compiler should however be recognized as close token. __HALT_COMPILER(); ?> Which basically has the tokenizer discard any code or plain HTML sections thereafter. In particular PHAR stubs make use of that, or its redundant combination with ?> as depicted. Likewise does a void return; infrequently substitute in include scripts, rendering any ?> with trailing whitespace noneffective. Then there are all kinds of soft / faux close tag variations; lesser known and seldomly used, but usually per commented-out tokens: Simple spacing // ? > to evade detection by PHPs tokenizer. Or fancy Unicode substitutes // ﹖﹥ (U+FE56 SMALL QUESTION MARK, U+FE65 SMALL ANGLE BRACKET) which a regexp can grasp. Both mean nothing to PHP, but can have practical uses for PHP-unaware or semi-aware external toolkits. Again cat-joined scripts come to mind, with resulting // ? > <?php concatenations that inline-retain the former file sectioning.
因此,对于强制的关闭标记省略,有依赖于上下文但实用的替代方法。
手动照看?>结束标记也不是很现代。一直都有自动化工具(即使只有sed/awk或regex-oneliners)。特别是:
Phptags标签更整洁 https://fossil.include-once.org/phptags/
通常可以用来为第三方代码打开php标签,或者只是修复任何(和所有)实际的空白/BOM问题:
Phptags——warn——whitespace *.php
它还处理——长标签转换等运行时/配置兼容性。
嗯,我知道原因,但我不能说出来:
对于只包含PHP代码的文件,永远不会出现结束标记(?>) 允许的。PHP并不要求它, 省略它可以防止 意外注入尾白 空格变成响应。
来源:http://framework.zend.com/manual/en/coding-standard.php-file-formatting.html
应该去掉php结束标记(?>)的原因是,这样程序员就不会意外地发送额外的换行字符。
不应该省略php结束标记的原因是它会导致php标记的不平衡,任何稍微有点头脑的程序员都可以记住不要添加额外的空白。
对于你的问题
还有其他好的理由跳过结束php标记吗?
不,没有其他好的理由跳过结束php标记。
我将以不使用结束标签的一些理由来结束:
人们总是会犯错误,不管他们有多聪明。 坚持一种可以减少可能错误数量的做法(恕我直言)是一个好主意。 PHP不是XML。PHP不需要遵循xml的严格标准来编写良好并具有良好的功能。如果一个丢失的结束标签让你烦恼,你可以使用一个结束标签,这不是一个固定不变的规则。