Description:
------------
I am writing a class that will include another file 
containing a class that needs to implement a specific 
interface. When calling php_check_syntax on the file its 
behavious differs depending on whether or not the class 
implements my interface. If the file implements my 
interface the class will not show up in 
get_declared_classes() and an include() of the file will 
work, but if the class doesn't implement my interface the 
class will be in get_declared_classes() and the include 
will fail with 'cannot redeclareclass'

Reproduce code:
---------------
in Main.php
<?php
interface MustImplement {}
if (!php_check_syntax('includeme.php'))
        die('Bad Syntax\n');
else include('includeme.php');
?>
in includeme.php (Case 1)
<?php
class AClass implements MustImplement
{}
?>
in includeme.php (Case 2)
<?php
class AClass
{}
?>

Expected result:
----------------
Case 1 of includeme.php will work OK, php_syntax_check will 
succeed and include will load the file OK, AClass will be 
available. 

Case 2 will fail, php_syntax_check will work but include 
will fail with 'cannot redeclare class' & Illegal 
Instruction

Actual result:
--------------
Just as Above. 

Ilia, maybe this function wasn't such a good idea after all?
Here's the first misuse of it already..

Don't misuse the function.

Bogus? Could someone document this function so we know what the "proper"
usage is? Is this funtion meant to load the file into the current scope
as it's syntax is checked? If so, please say so in the documentation.
Otherwise, I have another bug report to file.

original.php
<?php
$bool = php_check_syntax('checkme.php');
foo();
$bar = new Bar;
$bar->foo();
?>

checkme.php
<?php
function foo()
{ echo "checkme::foo\n"; }
class Bar {
    function foo()
    { echo "checkme::bar::foo\n"; }
}
?>

results in

checkme::foo
checkme::bar::foo

for example, when my assumption of how the function works should have
the code results in undefined function and class errors.

So should this function actually execute the code (like an include()) or
should it be a simple lint check (identical to php -l).  The doc team
assumed the later.  Please advise with specific information on how this
should be documented or if this is indeed a bug, say so.

http://cvs.php.net/co.php/phpdoc/en/reference/misc/functions/php-check-s
yntax.xml

Tested latest CVS on a Win32 machine, same problem.  Here's a very
simple test:

randominclude.php
<?php
function foobar() {
    echo "HI";
}
?>

checksyntax.php
<?php 
if (php_check_syntax('randominclude.php')) {
    echo "passed"; 
    foobar(); 
}
?>

Calling checksyntax.php via Module/CLI/CGI results in:

passedHI

As opposed to:

passed
Fatal error: Call to undefined function foobar() in ...

"So should this function actually execute the code (like an include())
or
should it be a simple lint check (identical to php -l)"

It should do only a lint check, otherway we don't need this function as
we already have include..

Anyway, we should really change the docs philip.

How should the docs be changed? This misfeature hasn't been dealt with
yet...maybe we should just remove the docs :)

"How should the docs be changed? This misfeature hasn't been dealt with
yet...maybe we should just remove the docs :)"

What misfeature? IMO a function that can check the syntax of a PHP file
before it's included has real benefits for development and testing (as
it can be used to avoid parse and fatal errors etc). And the
documentation of php_check_syntax perfectly describes such a function.
The only problem here is the fact that php_check_syntax not only checks
the code, but executes it as well. I'd say that this is unexpected,
undesirable behavior (a bug). The documentation is just fine the way it
is now...

My vote is for this function, and for updating the docs.  Also the
comments in the php.net manual should be updated, as this isn't really a
bug.

Simply saying that the function is being misused, or saying this is bug
is not a good thing.  People just need to understand its usage.

The simplest way I can see of updating the doc, is including a more
useful example.  Perhaps mentioning possible usages (checking the syntax
of a file for it's first load into a caching engine for example).

<?php

$error_message = "";
$filename = "./tests.php";

//Check out $filename
if(!php_check_syntax($filename, $error_message)) {
   //Display an error message, the code is bad
   printf("Errors were found in the file %s:\n\n%s\n", $filename,
$error_message);
} else {
   //Execute the valid code
   include_once ($filename);
}

?>

The person above posted this: 
---------------------- 
<?php 
 
$error_message = ""; 
$filename = "./tests.php"; 
 
//Check out $filename 
if(!php_check_syntax($filename, $error_message)) { 
   //Display an error message, the code is bad 
   printf("Errors were found in the file %s:\n\n%s\n", 
$filename, 
$error_message); 
} else { 
   //Execute the valid code 
   include_once ($filename); 
} 
------------------------- 
 
To use in the docs. The problem is this code is INCORRECT. 
The function php_check_syntax( ) INCLUDES THE FILE in php 
5.0.2 
 
This means you get redeclare errors if you try to check the 
syntax and then include the file. 
 
The example code SHOULD be: 
----------------- 
<?php 
 
$filename = '/path/to/somefile.php'; 
$err = (string) null; 
 
if( !php_check_syntax( $filename, $err ) ) { 
    print "Syntax Error!" 
    die( ); 
} 
 
// proceed, because at this point the file is included 
// or script is dead. 
 
-----------------------------

Couldnt there be an optional bool for including the function? Like 
bool php_check_syntax ( string file_name [, string &error_message][,
bool just_lint])
That is if 3rd var is true it behaves like php -l from CLI?
That way we that just wants to validate PHP code without
including/running it?
Preferrably in a totally secured way...

See also: http://bugs.php.net/27728

I see it's assigned to Ilia so I'm not changing the status. Personally I
would put this on very low priority for resolving. Whoever added the
lint functionality probably did it for the command-line PHP in order to
be able to quickly check a large amount of source code. I don't see this
as a mainstream feature of PHP and would avoid hacking on getting it
right as to not intefere with the normal execution of PHP (although it's
quite possible).

It's like include() except it won't output the "checked" file  (like if
the "checked" file has an echo, it won't echo it). Aside from the
obvious that's the only difference I notice but haven't tested it
thoroughly.

Sounds like this bug will never be fixed so I guess we should just
document the current behavior.

fix assign to

There seems to be a lot of discussion on whether this is a bug or a
misuse. Here is something else to consider:

de_bruut mentioned above that a syntax check function as described in
the documentation of this function would be useful for development and
testing, and I agree, but it also has other uses.

I am about to write a code repository website where users can submit
snippets (no smaller than complete functions) and it would be great to
be able to check the syntax of the uploaded code on the fly and reject
or accept it right there while the submitter is still online. This be
one less admin check to do before the code was accepted to the site.

Checking uploaded code snippets from the public is a huge security rick
if the syntax checker includes or executes the code, but a simple lint
check would be a huge boon to developers and code geeks like myself.

In my case, it would be fantastic if we could optionally syntax check a
string rather than a disk file as the code on my site would be stored in
a database (and I imagine many other repositories would do the same).

In the case of this bug a decision needs to be made as to whether the
code or the documentation expresses the true value of this function, and
one or other (ie: the code or the docco) needs to be fixed. This bug has
been open almost a year and it seems that decision still has not been
made.

If the documentation is correct and the function is a simple lint
checker, people can then include() any code that checks as valid if they
desire to, (some dont) but if the syntax checker includes the code
itself, then people like myself cant use it at all as the code to be
checked has no relation to the running website (and should never be
included).

There is one other difference between include and php_check_syntax that
should be noted in the manual. Aside from supressing output buffer, it
only includes functions and classes, it does not set or affect global
variables, the way include() would.

If you have "test.php"
$myvar = 1;
echo $myvar;
function myfunction() {}
class myclass {}

include ("test.php") will set $myvar, print $myvar and set myfunction &
myclass
php_check_syntax("test.php") will ONLY include myfunction & myclass

Couple of points:

1. there are already half a dozen functions that include files or
execute strings
2. there's no other function that allows you to check the validity of a
piece of php code
3. right now, php_check_syntax does more than its name implies (it
includes the file)
4. there are several situations where a 'clean' lint check of php code
is useful (snippet submissions, UNIT TESTS(!), ...)
5. in general, functions should do only one thing, not two only slightly
related things, and one of them badly

I would love to see php_check_syntax implemented as its name implies: a
lint check for a STRING. Not a file (see Wylie's comment), because there
are enough functions to read a file  or stream into a string.

If someone wants to include the file afterwards, they only need to add a
single line of code, or they can write their own two-line function. This
even leaves them the choice between include() and include_once(),
something which php_check_syntax does not do at this point.

Did I mention the potential value of php_check_syntax for >> UNIT TESTS
<< yet? php_check_syntax would allow us to check the syntax of a file
(string) as the first of a group of tests for that file/class, and thus
avoiding a potential fatal error, which could interrupt an entire set of
tests on multiple files. Thus, a syntax check could make quite a number
of very serious PHP developers very happy. Not much point if
php_check_syntax immediately includes the file (string) though...

I would have to agree with most of the other posters, that the
php_check_syntax() function as it stands right now does MORE than its
name implies.  I feel that a true php_check_syntax() function that
STRICTLY checks the syntax of a file or string and returns TRUE/FALSE
and has reference to an error message is the best.  In fact, I would
also like to see the possibility of having an additional reference
variable for the line number of an error.

I am developing a fairly advanced framework that does compile certain
aspects of a web site dynamically.  At first glance, I tried to
implement this function to check the syntax of the file both before
saving it and even before including it in the future.  However, I ran
into some confusing messages about my classes being redefined and I
couldn't understand until I read the docs closer.

The simple fact is that the REAL functionality of this function is the
syntax checking, NOT the including.  Any PHP programmer with more than 5
minutes of experience can probably include an external file.  So adding
that particular aspect of the functionality to php_check_syntax() seems
useless.  The code I have in my system goes a little like this:

<?php
...

function includeafile($sFile, $bOnce = FALSE)
{
    if (file_exists($sFile)) {
        if (!@php_check_syntax($sFile, $sMessage)) {
            error_handler("File '$sFile' has a syntax error: $sMessage",
__LINE__, __FILE__);
        } else {
            ... // go on including the file, etc.
        }
    }
    
    return FALSE;
}
?>

Now, I started getting errors all of a sudden saying that a class in the
file being included is being redeclared.  I thought that odd since I set
$bOnce = TRUE, so it shouldn't ever be included more than once.  I think
ideally I should be able to do this:

<?php
...

function includeafile($sFile, $bOnce = FALSE)
{
    if (file_exists($sFile)) {
        if (!@php_check_syntax($sFile, $sMessage, $iLine)) {
            error_handler("File '$sFile' has a syntax error: $sMessage",
$iLine, $sFile);
        } else {
            ... // go on including the file, etc.
            // it should not raise redeclaring errors
        }
    }
    
    return FALSE;
}
?>

Basically, it should:

1. Not include the file at all, just strictly do a lint check.
2. It would be nice to be able to get the line number of the file (for
debugging purposes).

At the lowest level, this function should be able to run like described
by many others:

<?php
if (php_check_syntax($file, $message)) {
    include $file;
} else {
    error("Syntax Error: '$message'");
}
?>

It should be up to the PHP programmer to include the file...

Another important use for this function would be when using eval()'s to
test the code before eval'ing it. In this case a string would be the
only option and declaring functions would definately not work...

Since this function isn't experimental any more, I assume it cant be
altered to do this, but a new one would need to be implemented?

If the file that is syntax checked has includes, the includes won't be
executed. That means as soon as you use php_check_syntax on such a file,
you won't be able to include it and you won't be able to use it either
because it's included files are MIA. That makes the function pretty
useless for any practical purposes.

This was fixed by removing the function altogether. 
It was nice idea but not one that could ever work reliably/be stable.
Use something like 'system("php -l foo.php");' to check the syntax..