Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:129759
Precedence: list
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2026 16:52:28 +0100
To: Larry Garfield <larry@garfieldtech.com>
Cc: php internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Context Managers
In-Reply-To: <905d9879-70ef-4c87-8578-26519c6d4818@app.fastmail.com>
References: <a087d9fa-112a-4631-9c84-3efae641e0db@app.fastmail.com>
 <905d9879-70ef-4c87-8578-26519c6d4818@app.fastmail.com>
Message-ID: <acc43a52ff355590ce45ec750420d8a3@bastelstu.be>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8;
 format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: tim@bastelstu.be (=?UTF-8?Q?Tim_D=C3=BCsterhus?=)

Hi

Note: I've not been able to fully work through the ML discussion and 
meaningfully think about all the commentary. This includes some of the 
older emails. I have also not yet given the RFC an in-depth read, like I 
would have normally done.

Some (incomplete) notes for now:

Am 2026-01-13 23:19, schrieb Larry Garfield:
> Once those issues are addressed, I think we're nearly able to take CMs 
> to a vote.  (If anyone else wants to weigh in on some other part as 
> well, even if it's just a voice of support/approval, now is the time.)

Something that I had noted in response to Rowan in the (what you call) 
“Bonus Thread” in https://news-web.php.net/php.internals/129582 and also 
in this RFC's discussion in 
https://news-web.php.net/php.internals/129618 and what was also 
mentioned by Marco Deleu in 
https://news-web.php.net/php.internals/129083 and what I feel is neither 
properly justified within the RFC text and as far as I can tell was not 
really discussed either:

The fact that `break;` and `continue;` target `using()` blocks. To me it 
violates the principle of least surprise that

     foreach ($users as $user) {
         using (new SuppressErrors()) {
             if ($user->isAdmin()) {
                 $firstAdmin = $user;
                 break;
             }
         }
     }

is incorrect code. The RFC just states *that* this will happen as a 
fact, but does not attempt to explain *why* that decision was made and 
neither are there any examples showcasing how that could be useful.

I'd also like to note that there's also an “Open Issue” listed in the 
RFC that is related to this topic.

---------------

With regard to the desugaring listed at the top: Can you please also 
provide the desugaring for the case where no context variable is 
specified for completeness?

Best regards
Tim Düsterhus