Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:126654
Feedback-ID: i8414410d:Fastmail
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2025 12:10:53 -0600
To: "php internals" <internals@lists.php.net>
Message-ID: <c9487579-c34e-4bcb-b89a-b8e555fb664e@app.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <9a2e81e8-3534-455b-879a-5a45c85b3ba7@gmail.com>
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>
 <07973EAE-2D83-47A8-8FA0-84286C77C02B@rwec.co.uk>
 <48d66433-3ae9-4895-8361-7c81a0a3670d@app.fastmail.com>
 <be7cb263-93a1-4bd8-9416-ae4d3e0bafe6@rwec.co.uk>
 <dbce8889-016a-4c59-864c-d8fdec895adc@app.fastmail.com>
 <CAM0Ccxh=bydoDEHBAV+Gb1_86HJjwhW06kzEsdRiMh93k1F7oA@mail.gmail.com>
 <8599eb8b-d4a3-4cb8-899a-25b134e0d64d@gmail.com>
 <D73BCCC4-3547-45B4-84AD-A5FD6569D43C@rwec.co.uk>
 <74c4c726-63aa-44e0-84c9-840e13a65a4f@gmail.com>
 <9b7ab30f-5ed6-400d-b941-1291e9185286@app.fastmail.com>
 <9a2e81e8-3534-455b-879a-5a45c85b3ba7@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP True Async RFC
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: larry@garfieldtech.com ("Larry Garfield")

On Sat, Mar 8, 2025, at 8:00 AM, Daniil Gentili wrote:
>> As far as I can tell, the entire reason we are talking about this is because adding the event loop changes the behavior of existing code. So we cannot "just turn it on". 
>> 
>> I haven't seen an explanation of why this is the case, but that's how we got to this point. We need some way to "opt in" to turning on the event loop. 
>
> This also seems like a very bad idea: there is no reason for the 
> language hide concurrency behind an INI or even worse a compilation 
> flag. 

This is beyond a strawman to the point of being a straw-pile.  Literally no one has suggested "hiding concurrency behind an ini flag or compilation flag."  Please confine your comments to those that have some basis is reality and in this thread.

--Larry Garfield