On Tue, Nov 11, 2025, at 5:31 AM, Derick Rethans wrote: > On Wed, 5 Nov 2025, Larry Garfield wrote: > >> On Wed, Nov 5, 2025, at 1:38 AM, Deleu wrote: >> >> > Out of curiosity, what happens if GOTO is used inside a context >> > block to jump away from it? >> >> That would be a success case, just like break or return. Basically >> anything other than an exception is a success case. (That said, >> please don't use Goto. :-) ) > > I do think you might need special attention to this case, as jumping out > of loops (such as foreach) needs to be handled with care.
I defer to Arnaud here. >> And now the big one... also in off-list discussion, Seifeddine noted >> that Laravel already defines a global function named `with`: >> https://github.com/laravel/framework/blob/12.x/src/Illuminate/Support/helpers.php#L510 >> >> And since this RFC would require `with` to be a semi-reserved keyword >> at the parser/token level, that creates a conflict. (This would be >> true even if it was namespaced, although Laravel is definitely Doing >> It Wrong(tm) by using an unnamespaced function.) Rendering all >> Laravel deployments incompatible with PHP 8.6 until it makes a >> breaking API change would be... not good for the ecosystem. > > PHP owns the top level namespace. That's been the going for as long as I > can remember. It was unwise for Laravel to flaunt that rule. Yes, Laravel is in the wrong here, but AIUI even a namespaced function would conflict with a soft-reserved keyword. And regardless, breaking Laravel is not a great plan. >> 1. Java uses a parenthetical block on `try` for similar functionality >> (though without a separate context manager). That would look like: >> >> try (new Foo() as $foo) { >> // ... >> } >> // catch and finally become optional if there is a context. > > … > >> 2. Either `use` or `using`. The semantics here would be identical to >> the current `with` proposal. > > IMO, the try syntax is more confusing than another overload of use. > > cheers, > Derick How about `using`? --Larry Garfield
