>
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2025 at 6:05 PM Larry Garfield <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Oct 27, 2025, at 7:08 AM, Edmond Dantes wrote:
>> > Hello all.
>> >
>> > ### Current work and discussion plan for this RFC
>> >
>> > 1. By the end of this week, the proposed changes at
>> >
>> > [
>> https://github.com/true-async/php-true-async-rfc/issues](https://github.com/true-async/php-true-async-rfc/issues)
>> > will be accepted if no objections are raised.
>> >
>> > 2. After that, the RFC document will be updated, and a new **2-week
>> > discussion period** will begin.
>> >
>> > 3. After the new changes are accepted, the RFC will be updated again,
>> > and the process will repeat.
>> >
>> > The discussion will be extended as long as necessary, including at the
>> > request of the participants.
>> >
>> > ---
>> > With best regards,
>> > Ed
>>
>> I am not sure how feasible this is, but would there be a way to split the
>> "async toggle" of IO operations off to its own PR/RFC? To me, that is by
>> far the most important part of this RFC as that's the biggest blocker for
>> wider async adoption, but I'm not sure how many layers are needed above it
>> to make it possible to toggle in a safe fashion.
>>
>
> Hi!
>
> Can you clarify what you mean by "async toggle"?
> Is it the actual implementation that would use async constructs if the
> current context is a coroutine for each implementation of IO functions?
> Yes, for that, it would be nice to have separate PRs, even multiple ones
> for easier review. But maybe you mean something else...
>
> --
> Alex
>
