Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:129760
Feedback-ID: i8414410d:Fastmail
Precedence: list
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2026 10:01:50 -0600
To: "php internals" <internals@lists.php.net>
Message-ID: <8cd697c3-5e25-4854-810c-da220da3f6d8@app.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <acc43a52ff355590ce45ec750420d8a3@bastelstu.be>
References: <a087d9fa-112a-4631-9c84-3efae641e0db@app.fastmail.com>
 <905d9879-70ef-4c87-8578-26519c6d4818@app.fastmail.com>
 <acc43a52ff355590ce45ec750420d8a3@bastelstu.be>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Context Managers
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: larry@garfieldtech.com ("Larry Garfield")

On Thu, Jan 15, 2026, at 9:52 AM, Tim D=C3=BCsterhus wrote:
> Hi
>
> Note: I've not been able to fully work through the ML discussion and=20
> meaningfully think about all the commentary. This includes some of the=20
> older emails. I have also not yet given the RFC an in-depth read, like=
 I=20
> 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 CM=
s=20
>> to a vote.  (If anyone else wants to weigh in on some other part as=20
>> 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)=20
> =E2=80=9CBonus Thread=E2=80=9D in https://news-web.php.net/php.interna=
ls/129582 and also=20
> in this RFC's discussion in=20
> https://news-web.php.net/php.internals/129618 and what was also=20
> mentioned by Marco Deleu in=20
> https://news-web.php.net/php.internals/129083 and what I feel is neith=
er=20
> properly justified within the RFC text and as far as I can tell was no=
t=20
> really discussed either:
>
> The fact that `break;` and `continue;` target `using()` blocks. To me =
it=20
> violates the principle of least surprise that
>
>      foreach ($users as $user) {
>          using (new SuppressErrors()) {
>              if ($user->isAdmin()) {
>                  $firstAdmin =3D $user;
>                  break;
>              }
>          }
>      }
>
> is incorrect code. The RFC just states *that* this will happen as a=20
> fact, but does not attempt to explain *why* that decision was made and=20
> neither are there any examples showcasing how that could be useful.

The core point here is that we needed some way to successfully terminate=
 the block early, and `return` was already taken by the function.  `brea=
k` seemed like the obvious keyword to use, as in other contexts it also =
means "skip to the end of this block." =20

`continue` is really just to mirror what switch does with it.  If the co=
nsensus is to simply disallow `continue` entirely (which is inconsistent=
 with what switch does today), we're OK with that.  I don't feel strongl=
y either way, so we're looking for a consensus.

If there's a different keyword than `break` you think would make more se=
nse here, please do suggest it and provide an argument.  But "break does=
 the same thing here it does in switch, foreach, and while" seems like a=
 pretty straightforward approach.

> I'd also like to note that there's also an =E2=80=9COpen Issue=E2=80=9D=
 listed in the=20
> RFC that is related to this topic.
>
> ---------------
>
> With regard to the desugaring listed at the top: Can you please also=20
> provide the desugaring for the case where no context variable is=20
> specified for completeness?

Desugaring at the top?  The desugaring is explained about a third of the=
 way down. :-)  Is that what you mean?  (In the "Implementation" section=
.)  It doesn't make any sense to go into that level of detail in the int=
roduction.

--Larry Garfield