Please excuse the year long bump, but I was hoping to draw some more attention to the implicit "match (true)" case. I'm just a regular user of PHP, nothing too fancy, just one of the many, many people around the world who use PHP. When I first started using match statements, I thought it was a natural thing that an implicit "match (true)" would just work. I do hope that this makes it into PHP 8.1, as that seems like the most obvious next step here and it would be nice for it to make it into the very next release.
That is all. Thank you very much to Ilija Tovilo for adding the match keyword to the language, and the whole PHP dev team for making this incredible language. PHP has given me a whole career, and I am deeply grateful to you all. On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 11:30 AM Larry Garfield <la...@garfieldtech.com> wrote: > On Fri, May 22, 2020, at 6:08 AM, Ilija Tovilo wrote: > > Hi internals > > > > I'd like to announce the match expression v2 RFC: > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/match_expression_v2 > > > > The goal of the new draft is to be as simple and uncontroversial as > > possible. It differs from v1 in the following ways: > > > > * Blocks were removed > > * Secondary votes were removed > > * optional semicolon > > * omitting `(true)` > > * Unimportant details were removed (e.g. examples for future scope) > > > > You can look at the diff here: > > https://github.com/iluuu1994/match-expression-rfc/pull/8/files > > > > I will also leave the discussion period open for longer as that too > > was one of the primary criticisms. > > > > As mentioned by Kalle: > > > > > Resurrecting rejected RFCs have a "cooldown" of 6 months: > > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/voting#resurrecting_rejected_proposals > > > > That is, unless: > > > > > The author(s) make substantial changes to the proposal. While it's > > > impossible to put clear definitions on what constitutes 'substantial' > > > changes, they should be material enough so that they'll significantly > > > affect the outcome of another vote. > > > > Given that many people have said without blocks they'd vote yes I'd > > say this is the case here. Let me know if you don't agree. > > > > Ilija > > I'd say this is a textbook example of sufficiently "substantial." > > Thanks, Ilija! This looks a lot better. > > My one question is why you're not including the implicit "match (true)" in > this version, when the secondary vote on the previous RFC was 80% in favor > of it. > > (And I still think the argument is stronger if you include a comparison to > ternary assignment, but that doesn't affect implementation.) > > --Larry Garfield > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > -- Thank you for your time, Mark 'Dygear' Tomlin;
