On Wed, Nov 19, 2025, at 4:19 PM, Rowan Tommins [IMSoP] wrote:
> On 18/11/2025 17:23, Larry Garfield wrote:
>> One thing I definitely do not like is the need for a `FileWrapper` class in
>> the RAII file-handle example. That seems like an unnecessary level of
>> abstraction just to squeeze the `fclose()` value onto the file handle. The
>> fully-separated Context Manager seems a more flexible approach.
>
>
> Yes, exploring how exactly that flexibility could be used was part of
> my motivation for the examples I picked.
>
> The downside is that it is slightly harder to understand at first
> glance: someone reading "using (file_for_write('file.txt') as $fh)"
> might well assume that $fh is the value returned from
> "file_for_write('file.txt')", rather than the value returned from
> "file_for_write('file.txt')->enterContext()".
>
> What made sense to me was comparing to an Iterator that only goes
> around once - in "foreach (files_to_write_to() as $fh)", the
> "files_to_write_to()" call doesn't return $fh either,
> "files_to_write_to()->current()" does.
That's a good analogy, I like it.
>> I also noted that all of the examples wrap the context block (of whichever
>> syntax) in a try-catch of its own. I don't know if that's going to be a
>> common pattern or not. If so, might it suggest that the `using` block have
>> its own built-in optional `catch` and `finally` for one-off additional
>> handling? That could point toward the Java approach of merging this
>> functionality into `try`, but I am concerned about the implications of
>> making both `catch` and `finally` effectively optional on `try` blocks. I
>> am open to discussion on this front. (Anyone know what the typical use
>> cases are in Python?)
>
>
> Looking at the parser, I realised that a "try" block with neither
> "catch" nor "finally" actually matches the grammar; it is only rejected
> by a specific check when compiling the AST to opcodes. Without that
> check, it would just compile to some unnecessary jump table entries.
>
>
>
> I guess an alternative would be allowing any statement after the
> using() rather than always a block, as in Seifeddine and Tim's
> proposal, which allows you to stack like this:
>
> using ($db->transactionScope()) try {
> // ...
> }
> catch ( SomeSpecificException $e ) {
> // ...
> }
>
> Or, the specific combination "try using( ... )" could be added to the
> parser. (At the moment, "try" must always be followed by "{".)
>
>
>
> As I noted in one of the examples
> (file-handle/application/1b-raii-with-scope-block.php), there is a
> subtle difference in semantics between different nesting orders - with
> "try using()", you can catch exceptions thrown by enterContext() and
> exitContext(); with "using() try", you can catch exceptions before
> exitContext() sees them and cleans up.
>
> It seems Java's try-with-resources is equivalent to "try using()":
>
>> In a try-with-resources statement, any catch or finally block is run after
>> the resources declared have been closed.
Thanks. I'll discuss these options with Arnaud. Anyone else want to weigh in
here?
>> Which is exactly the benefit of the separation of the Context Manager from
>> the Context Variable. The CM can be written to rely on `unset()` closing
>> the object (risk 2), or to handle closing it itself (risk 1), as the
>> developer determines.
>
>
> Something the examples I picked don't really showcase is that a Context
> Manager doesn't need to be specialised to a particular task at all, it
> can generically implement one of these strategies.
>
> The general pattern is this:
>
> class GeneralPurposeCM implements ContextManager {
> public function __construct(private object $contextVar) {}
> public function enterContext(): object { return $this->contextVar; }
> public functoin exitContext(): void {}
> }
>
> - On its own, that makes "using(new GeneralPurposeCM(new Something) as
> $foo) { ... }" a very over-engineered version of "{ let $foo = new
> Something; ... }"
True! It may make sense eventually to provide a "UnsetThis(mixed $var)" CM in
the stdlib. Not something to include now, but I've no issue with it existing
eventually.
> Incidentally, while checking I had the right method name in the above,
> I noticed the Context Manager RFC has an example using "leaveContext"
> instead, presumably an editing error. :)
Indeed. Fixed now, thanks.
--Larry Garfield
