Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:129922
Feedback-ID: i8414410d:Fastmail
Precedence: list
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2026 13:39:59 -0600
To: "php internals" <internals@lists.php.net>
Message-ID: <04bb674e-0a47-48d3-b19e-0cb9638cfc4f@app.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAMW7n8BuzWbj18+1aVWzOvx-WOvN-Twa2TVh6VT+b16HE+szSQ@mail.gmail.com>
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>
 <CAMW7n8CFOafm21nbzPRx35ZXKzi-B0WC+7=X7dJMT=f=GDan-g@mail.gmail.com>
 <9f2fb78d-143e-c84a-8243-97e0352497e4@php.net>
 <CAMW7n8C41JB14qNM9SqjUEk3_nYMegMqUywR2if6g0YCLKFZ+g@mail.gmail.com>
 <9d2962b9-2278-4fae-9241-9def0f33711f@app.fastmail.com>
 <CAMW7n8C=87rrzxH4n=_XKkVhmxG731cdnsfF-ujYs1ko-O=j9w@mail.gmail.com>
 <213a47c7-cb2e-4d5c-b26b-ce18e3ce6d00@app.fastmail.com>
 <CAMW7n8BuzWbj18+1aVWzOvx-WOvN-Twa2TVh6VT+b16HE+szSQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] True Async RFC 1.7
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: larry@garfieldtech.com ("Larry Garfield")

On Fri, Jan 23, 2026, at 1:24 PM, Edmond Dantes wrote:
> Hello
>
>>  This proposal is *huge*, and subsequent drafts are often very heavil=
y modified,
>
> This proposal used to be huge, but it no longer is. The current
> version contains a fairly simple API with a minimal set of functions.
> The conceptual core of the RFC can be described in just two or three
> sentences.
> It=E2=80=99s also worth taking into account that the RFC does not prop=
ose
> anything new to the programming world. The principles are well known,
> and existing analogues already exist. This is very important from a
> comprehension standpoint.
>
>> and subsequent drafts are often very heavily modified, so that means =
people need to spend an hour or two each time there's a change fully dig=
esting it.
>
> At least since the summer revision, the RFC has not changed
> significantly. Most importantly, its core principles have remained
> exactly the same for a long time. Version 1.7 is a purely incremental
> change, which is clearly reflected in the history.

According to my browser, the RFC will take 55 minutes to read.  Add time=
 to actually understand it, digest it, and form an opinion and feedback =
worth sharing, and you're talking 2-3 hours.

I am going to attempt to take that time on this draft in the next few da=
ys, but please don't pretend that it's not a large undertaking for those=
 who haven't been living and breathing this RFC for the past year.  It m=
ay well be necessary for a project of this size; I am familiar with that=
. :-)  But that is an inevitable friction point.

--Larry Garfield