Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:130589
Feedback-ID: id5114917:Fastmail
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="------------eL8210RsAUjM80k7IhWedWzC"
Message-ID: <0c59c7d4-8748-47ca-a626-179661803b51@rwec.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2026 23:27:46 +0100
Precedence: list
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Context Managers
To: internals@lists.php.net
References: <a087d9fa-112a-4631-9c84-3efae641e0db@app.fastmail.com>
 <cf17cf19-f41e-4378-9a82-cb7f1a9d7b70@app.fastmail.com>
 <5d96fca3ca5418e6e9e5d8871b26477f@bastelstu.be>
 <8bf1b0a7-7771-4f81-b92c-49bb019f7f9d@app.fastmail.com>
 <02dbe23bb5a4e53be7bf2db7506e07b6@bastelstu.be>
 <841b8e97-9052-4868-badc-1dd1dad0e99a@app.fastmail.com>
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <841b8e97-9052-4868-badc-1dd1dad0e99a@app.fastmail.com>
From: imsop.php@rwec.co.uk ("Rowan Tommins [IMSoP]")

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------eL8210RsAUjM80k7IhWedWzC
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On 07/04/2026 17:20, Larry Garfield wrote:
> We've updated the RFC to address the break question (new section), the continue question (which is now a secondary vote)


You are still relying on an incorrect explanation of the relationship 
between "switch" and "continue":

 > This behavior is due to a quirk of PHP's design, where |switch| is 
treated as a looping structure, which most languages do not.


"continue" is counted for switch statements not because it is "treated 
as a loop", but because PHP has numbered break and continue targets. 
Numbering break targets differently from continue targets would be 
extremely confusing, so they have to target the same list of constructs.

There was strong consensus on this point in the previous discussion.


I can only see three defensible options:

1) Support neither "break" nor "continue". This would be consistent with 
"if", "try", etc, which you have used as comparisons in the RFC.

2) Support "break", and have a Warning on "continue". This would be 
consistent with "switch", and harmless.

3) Support "break", and have an Error on "continue". This would be novel 
behaviour, but not dangerous.


Personally, I'm leaning towards option 1 - the case for "break" feels 
weak to me.


Regards,

-- 
Rowan Tommins
[IMSoP]

--------------eL8210RsAUjM80k7IhWedWzC
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
  <head>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
  </head>
  <body>
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 07/04/2026 17:20, Larry Garfield
      wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote type="cite"
      cite="mid:841b8e97-9052-4868-badc-1dd1dad0e99a@app.fastmail.com">
      <pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">We've updated the RFC to address the break question (new section), the continue question (which is now a secondary vote)</pre>
    </blockquote>
    <p><br>
    </p>
    <p>You are still relying on an incorrect explanation of the
      relationship between "switch" and "continue":</p>
    <p>&gt; This behavior is due to a quirk of PHP's design, where <code>switch</code>
      is treated as a looping structure, which most languages do not.</p>
    <p><br>
    </p>
    <p>"continue" is counted for switch statements not because it is
      "treated as a loop", but because PHP has numbered break and
      continue targets. Numbering break targets differently from
      continue targets would be extremely confusing, so they have to
      target the same list of constructs.</p>
    <p>There was strong consensus on this point in the previous
      discussion.</p>
    <p><br>
    </p>
    <p>I can only see three defensible options:</p>
    <p>1) Support neither "break" nor "continue". This would be
      consistent with "if", "try", etc, which you have used as
      comparisons in the RFC.</p>
    <p>2) Support "break", and have a Warning on "continue". This would
      be consistent with "switch", and harmless.</p>
    <p>3) Support "break", and have an Error on "continue". This would
      be novel behaviour, but not dangerous.</p>
    <p><br>
    </p>
    <p>Personally, I'm leaning towards option 1 - the case for "break"
      feels weak to me.</p>
    <p><br>
    </p>
    <p>Regards,</p>
    <pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">-- 
Rowan Tommins
[IMSoP]</pre>
  </body>
</html>

--------------eL8210RsAUjM80k7IhWedWzC--