I really think that the implicit `match (true) {` is an easily understood
behavior.On Fri, Jun 18, 2021 at 11:04 AM Guilliam Xavier <guilliam.xav...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 18, 2021 at 4:24 PM Larry Garfield <la...@garfieldtech.com> > wrote: > > > On Thu, Jun 17, 2021, at 1:49 PM, Mark Tomlin wrote: > > > 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. > > > > I wrote a separate small RFC for implicit-true match statements ( > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/short-match). There didn't seem to be a great > > deal of interest, though (https://externals.io/message/112496). > > > > There's not much else to do with that RFC beyond bring it to a vote and > > let the chips fall where they may. If folks think that's worth doing I > can > > do so. It's not going to be able to scope creep much beyond its current > > minimalism. > > > > Before going to vote, I think the RFC should be updated to at least mention > the strict-VS-loose comparison choice (for things like `match { > preg_match(/*...*/) => /*...*/ }`). > > Regards, > > -- > Guilliam Xavier > -- Thank you for your time, Mark 'Dygear' Tomlin;
