It's a newbie coding style recommendation, well-intentioned, and advised by the manual.
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.
Discouraging any use of the ?>
close tag merely delays explaining basic PHP processing behaviour and language semantics to eschew infrequent issues. It is practical still for collaborative software development due to proficiency variations in participants.
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.
So there are context-dependent but practical alternatives to an imperative close tag omission.
Manual babysitting of ?>
close tags is not very contemporary either way. There always have been automation tools for that (even if just sed/awk or regex-oneliners). In particular:
phptags tag tidier
https://fossil.include-once.org/phptags/
Which could generally be used to --unclose
php tags for third-party code, or rather just fix any (and all) actual whitespace/BOM issues:
phptags --warn --whitespace *.php
It also handles --long
tag conversion etc. for runtime/configuration compatibility.