Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:129793
Message-ID: <166cabf3-4a3d-4975-bb39-0a8847fac192@bastelstu.be>
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2026 22:22:35 +0100
Precedence: list
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][Discussion] use construct (Block Scoping)
To: Seifeddine Gmati <azjezz@carthage.software>, internals@lists.php.net
References: <CAFyg4HhrzQrE-q8D6WVkyq9tY+hzR=8rXiXLDPYpNKdYeydrVA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <CAFyg4HhrzQrE-q8D6WVkyq9tY+hzR=8rXiXLDPYpNKdYeydrVA@mail.gmail.com>
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

On 11/3/25 22:46, Seifeddine Gmati wrote:
> Please find the following resources for your reference:
> 
>     -
> 
>     RFC: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/optin_block_scoping
>     -
> 
>     POC:
>     https://github.com/php/php-src/compare/master...TimWolla:php-src:block-scope

The actual proposal of this RFC has been unchanged since the middle of 
November and the last meaningful change to the RFC text was made in the 
middle of December to improve the explanation.

While the discussion in the related “comparison thread” by Rowan still 
has been active before the holiday break (with one reply of mine after 
the break), it was only discussing fundamental syntax (and semantic) 
choices, which we do not plan to change at this point. Both because 
Seifeddine and I are confident in the design of the RFC and because 
changing them would be equivalent to a full rewrite of the RFC (which 
would be more appropriate as a new v2 RFC).

Even though we ultimately disagreed, we would like to thank Rowan in 
particular for the insightful discussion that provided valuable help to 
further refine and clarify the RFC text, hopefully helping folks make an 
informed decision.

We therefore plan to open voting later this week, unless someone speaks 
up pointing out a major oversight or any other meaningful concerns we 
all missed.

Best regards
Tim Düsterhus