Skip to main content

PHP_EOL: Most Worthless Constant?

PHP_EOL may very well be the most worthless general-purpose constant in modern PHP. It's supposed to be helpful for cross-platform developing, for example you could write a PHP-powered shell script that says:

<?php
echo "Operation Successful!" . PHP_EOL;

and then expect the proper newline to terminate the output string based on the platform PHP is running on.

That's all well and good, but the following is functionally equivalent:

<?php
echo "Operation Successful!\n";

Try it out and you'll see. In console output on Windows, Linux, and Mac they all are displayed with the expected newline terminating the output string.

I don't see it being useful for writing data or log output to a file either. If you're writing and reading on the same platform then newline discrepancies won't be an issue, and if you're writing on one platform and reading on another then you'll want to standardize on a newline anyway.

Has PHP_EOL's time come and gone? Do you use it in your code, and if so why?

Comments

  1. Your thoughts on using \n than PHP_EOL doesn't sounds good for me. The \n has a problem, for it will not be a new line if its quoted inside single quotes. So the expected behavior differs ;).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the comment! Yeah people do seem to hate double quotes, don't they.

      One could use the inverse argument with PHP_EOL, though: it MUST be appended. With \n you can either embed it in a double-quoted string or append it, whichever you prefer. Not only is it less typing, it's more flexible.

      echo "Operation Successful!\n";
      echo 'Operation Successful!' . "\n";

      Delete
  2. I never noticed \n produced a newline on windows PHP shell scripts.. always been using PHP_EOL for those.

    One actual use-case I could think of might be if you're for example generating text files. Considering Windows' default offerings for text editors (notepad) screw up *nix newlines completely, it might be a good idea to use PHP_EOL in a case like that.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I agree with you, I think is totally useless now. I've never used it and probably I'll never do.

    ReplyDelete
  4. you're forgetting that when writing files it will produce different results.
    Not to mention if you commit those files to git and you are with a group of unix developers... not fun.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Just to note, if you use double quotes, php will analyze de string in search for things to interpret (like \n or variables), if you use single quotes php will just pass the string. There for, if you don't need to put variables or commands inside a string, use single quotes, then concat the eol. Everything depends on the use and preference. For me is better to use single quotes to "save" a little bit of processing and then append PHP_EOL avoiding passing the string trhough the php parser before.

    ReplyDelete
  6. It's useful if generating files that are meant to be compatible with other platforms. A good example is writing a framework or object that generates cache files, system log files, inserts text database records, or sends emails (some mail servers expect the platform's EOL). If you upload your linux specific "\n" script to a windows or mac based distro you have the potential of messing things up. Similar issues with DIRECTORY_SEPARATOR and PATH_SEPARATOR. If you're writing scripts that are not going to be migrating cross-platform, then it is useless, but if you're writing shared class objects or a framework, you will eventually get bug reports related to the newline being statically defined.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Composing Music with PHP

I’m not an expert on probability theory, artificial intelligence, and machine learning. And even my Music 201 class from years ago has been long forgotten. But if you’ll indulge me for the next 10 minutes, I think you’ll find that even just a little knowledge can yield impressive results if creatively woven together. I’d like to share with you how to teach PHP to compose music. Here’s an example: You’re looking at a melody generated by PHP. It’s not the most memorable, but it’s not unpleasant either. And surprisingly, the code to generate such sequences is rather brief. So what’s going on? The script calculates a probability map of melodic intervals and applies a Markov process to generate a new sequence. In friendlier terms, musical data is analyzed by a script to learn which intervals make up pleasing melodies. It then creates a new composition by selecting pitches based on the possibilities it’s observed. . Standing on Shoulders Composition doesn’t happen in a vacuum. Bach wa

Learning Prolog

I'm not quite sure exactly I was searching for, but somehow I serendipitously stumbled upon the site learnprolognow.org a few months ago. It's the home for an introductory Prolog programming course. Logic programming offers an interesting way to think about your problems; I've been doing so much procedural and object-oriented programming in the past decade that it really took effort to think at a higher level! I found the most interesting features to be definite clause grammars (DCG), and unification. Difference lists are very powerful and Prolog's DCG syntax makes it easy to work with them. Specifying a grammar such as: s(s(NP,VP)) --> np(NP,X,Y,subject), vp(VP,X,Y). np(np(DET,NBAR,PP),X,Y,_) --> det(DET,X), nbar(NBAR,X,Y), pp(PP). np(np(DET,NBAR),X,Y,_) --> det(DET,X), nbar(NBAR,X,Y). np(np(PRO),X,Y,Z) --> pro(PRO,X,Y,Z). vp(vp(V),X,Y) --> v(V,X,Y). vp(vp(V,NP),X,Y) --> v(V,X,Y), np(NP,_,_,object). nbar(nbar(JP),X,3) --> jp(JP,X). pp(pp(PREP,N

What's Wrong with OOP

Proponents of Object Oriented Programming feel the paradigm yields code that is better organized, easier to understand and maintain, and reusable. They view procedural programming code as unwieldy spaghetti and embrace OO-centric design patterns as the "right way" to do things. They argue objects are easier to grasp because they model how we view the world. If the popularity of languages like Java and C# is any indication, they may be right. But after almost 20 years of OOP in the mainstream, there's still a large portion of programmers who resist it. If objects truly model the way people think of things in the real world, then why do people have a hard time understanding and working in OOP? I suspect the problem might be the focus on objects instead of actions. If I may quote from Steve Yegge's Execution in the Kingdom of Nouns : Verbs in Javaland are responsible for all the work, but as they are held in contempt by all, no Verb is ever permitted to wander about