Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:126630
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAMW7n8AJckEDzhGv9BdjNhq8zAdCqb4HsVr56vGi+izw50X6Dg@mail.gmail.com>
 <9964db8c-0ffe-43d5-8246-47fc76b07180@app.fastmail.com> <CAMW7n8CM7oBfXCDsKtV4hTFs40UmLCU3183WjYE2exLNqKDWLQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <78a03dd0-fd4a-4f4a-ad8a-37e5704f06fc@app.fastmail.com> <CAMW7n8C-Z18MKhyDX2+ofg70cRbwWOk=YWDAZpKtfLZsFVVRng@mail.gmail.com>
 <bb7a9f8f-0422-45e5-b4fc-f5757add92b4@app.fastmail.com> <CAMW7n8BnzL7d0bd_Y_jGOmyWegKQpm-FzrVFRCcDe=bNFZpi+A@mail.gmail.com>
 <08c8ad0b-e8f4-46e3-99f0-b80748d40b89@app.fastmail.com> <CAMW7n8D5BnQoZNRmDwb-2iBo2u9pKcRt7kvwCypz+eNLe+O9kg@mail.gmail.com>
 <70413542-e1b1-42a5-ad65-44cd442a4454@rwec.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <70413542-e1b1-42a5-ad65-44cd442a4454@rwec.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2025 09:32:39 +0200
Message-ID: <CAMW7n8CPmsmHevuOpj1U8Ri_GapDAhbuHaTgcT+O5mD_8eQSfQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP True Async RFC
To: "Rowan Tommins [IMSoP]" <imsop.php@rwec.co.uk>
Cc: internals@lists.php.net
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000000762bf062fcfbfbf"
From: edmond.ht@gmail.com (Edmond Dantes)

--0000000000000762bf062fcfbfbf
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

>
>  Let's assume we want to support this scenario; we could:
>

Thank you, that's an accurate summary. I would focus on two options:

   1. Creating child coroutines by default, but allowing unbound ones to
   exist.
   2. Explicitly creating child coroutines.

And in the RFC, I would leave the choice open to all participants.

In terms of syntax, it might look something like this (just thinking out
loud):

```php

async {
    async child {


    }

}

```

or

```php

async {
    async unbound {


    }

}

```

  The pros and cons were described earlier and will be moved to a separate
RFC.

--0000000000000762bf062fcfbfbf
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">&gt;<br>&gt;=C2=A0

Let&#39;s assume we want to support this scenario; we could:<br>&gt;<br><br=
><p>Thank you, that&#39;s an accurate summary. I would focus on two options=
:</p>
<ol>
<li>Creating child coroutines by default, but allowing unbound ones to exis=
t.</li>
<li>Explicitly creating child coroutines.</li>
</ol>
<p>And in the RFC, I would leave the choice open to all participants.</p>
<p>In terms of syntax, it might look something like this (just thinking out=
 loud):</p><p>```php</p><p>async {<br>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 async child {</p><p><br=
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 }</p><p>}</p><p>```<br><br>or<br><br></p><p>```php</p><p>asy=
nc {<br>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 async unbound {</p><p><br>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 }</p><p>}</p>=
<p>```<br><br>=C2=A0 The pros and cons were described earlier and will be m=
oved to a separate RFC.=C2=A0=C2=A0</p></div>

--0000000000000762bf062fcfbfbf--