[phc-general] Structured Tags pre-processor
Edsko de Vries
edsko at phpcompiler.org
Fri Aug 11 10:38:46 CEST 2006
First of all, sorry to have been a bit sloppy about the license thing,
Paul's email was more accurate - I stand corrected :-) Nevertheless,
despite appearances, it really is no problem to re-distribute phc in a
modified form. One thing I should mention however is that the PHP
license (that is PHP, not phc) has the following clause:
Products derived from this software may not be called "PHP", nor may
"PHP" appear in their name, without prior written permission from
group at php.net. You may indicate that your software works in
conjunction with PHP by saying "Foo for PHP" instead of calling it
"PHP Foo" or "phpfoo"
Now, obviously, there are plenty of open source packages that violate
this requirement (the likes of "phpBB") and they seem to get away with
it, but I still thought I ought to mention it.
> I noticed the process_ast.cpp is already listed in that Makefile.am file.
Oh, sure. If you can put all your code into process_ast.cpp (and
headers) and don't need to add any C++ files, you don't need to modify
the makefile at all.
> >Yeah, I know, Lisp advocates have been saying that for years (that XML
> >is just Lisp re-invented, except worse). The only argument I've every
> >heard that I thought was halfway convincing that XML syntax is better is
> >that the closing brackets in Lisp are meaningless, whereas in XML they
> >indicate _what_ they are closing (i.e., "</b>" is clearer than ")").
> Well, in my syntax they don't.
True. Note that I'm not saying its an important argument; it's simply
the only argument about the improvement of XML over Lisp I've ever heard
that I thought had any merit to it :)
More information about the phc-general