Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:129837
Precedence: list
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAMW7n8B9XHzF5ND21-hNYtw26EnE+0b+W0Nv=wb_ayMmu4CbKw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMW7n8C1m08+pKKYBGkMnNZmGmu-_kkxS-r_SCuRupBY+RHe5A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANCsWvfXWDjdmKFFQvV0Ger6yNVSfOhQqnbyTr7bEQHSjmXyLg@mail.gmail.com>
 <79CDB2CC-E397-436E-B5A2-10DA1E451A97@rwec.co.uk> <CAMW7n8BJcC-X-sA0NB_oQLfzry+331TfO1uhvNDGZcoSxe7bFQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <D427F18D-CDEC-4DDE-8169-71F8156F2E48@rwec.co.uk> <CAMW7n8BjxUUiizXbD1Lb526WsV=6erew-rK70gvMoWoQ2sqDmQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADK1yX+fA2epqOn2rcesmVBZMj4taeARhyuNdTky9aH4B6NhWg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMW7n8ALJ2w7iSwVX1TvyiosN_dzj=0NV0XBRZeQ3Hdov98C6Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAEKnhAFbU5H3qs-s0_FsT6w1Bu8n6HD+BQRt1SoOCUwa3XtT_w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAEKnhAFbU5H3qs-s0_FsT6w1Bu8n6HD+BQRt1SoOCUwa3XtT_w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2026 10:05:23 +0200
Message-ID: <CAMW7n8CFOafm21nbzPRx35ZXKzi-B0WC+7=X7dJMT=f=GDan-g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] True Async RFC 1.7
To: Jakub Zelenka <bukka@php.net>
Cc: php internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: edmond.ht@gmail.com (Edmond Dantes)

> I don't like this experimental model or introducing API stability levels =
as it is confusing for users. It requires extra checking for users to do fo=
r each API (no one usually does it and with AI it will be even more problem=
atic because it might not tell that the generated code uses experimental AP=
I). This would just become pain for user and I don't think it would be good=
 for PHP.

I think this is a good topic for discussion, and we could talk about
the pros and cons of a =E2=80=9Cnightly=E2=80=9D build.
I could explain how early product delivery improves code quality.

> That can be already done but it will never guarantee that the second vote=
 will succeed.
It's OK!
But at least I would know that the PHP community truly wants to make
the language asynchronous. I still don=E2=80=99t understand the answer to t=
hat
question. It seems to me: no.

We could probably include a vote in this RFC on three core principles:

* concurrency
* transparent asynchronicity
* cancellation

to see how many people support them. If more than one third vote
against it, then we can safely stop trying to change anything.