Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:102266
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.215.68 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAESVnVqm3tVt53bQfxOpQcOMf_2fXhnu9y+42trTfv7zNMONHw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAF+90c-HGB-2MbdrCYuQNrNYR4EJ9hAeFaKTW-sh1kwboDd0Kg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180614155730.2C8BC1A8027C@dd1730.kasserver.com> <53d1a1f6-10b8-3aec-c2ac-a005d6041f15@librelamp.com>
 <CALKiJKoiB+=2JQcjCg6Dk+L1A3be9SuqzD2sjEUbP364vXAnnA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALKiJKoiB+=2JQcjCg6Dk+L1A3be9SuqzD2sjEUbP364vXAnnA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2018 17:56:51 -0400
Message-ID: <CAPKYkKx=wvcHD-xaNQeRFfYQ+zF6rfrveg0AvH=zr28mybJgVQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Rowan Collins <rowan.collins@gmail.com>
Cc: Alice Wonder <alice@librelamp.com>, PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000007f25056ea12e82"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Strict switch statements
From: chasepeeler@gmail.com (Chase Peeler)

--000000000000007f25056ea12e82
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 12:45 PM Rowan Collins <rowan.collins@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 14 June 2018 at 17:16, Alice Wonder <alice@librelamp.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Should declare(strict_types = 1) do that?
> >
> > I haven't tried, but I would think it should.
>
>
>
> No, it doesn't, and shouldn't. "strict_types" actually means
> "non_coercive_scalar_type_hints"; it's a very specific feature, controlling
> a specific set of situations, not a catch-all "strict mode" for anything
> type-related.
>
> I suppose we could have a new directive that magically changed the default
> for the "strict" parameter of array_search, et al. But if that converted
> switch, would it also convert == itself? And then would we need a new
> syntax for "opting out" and using the loose comparison? Would the resulting
> confusion of people not seeing which mode a file was in be worth it?
>
> This is exactly why I think the word "strict" should be avoided at all
> costs; it's just far too ambiguous.
>
> Regards,
> --
> Rowan Collins
> [IMSoP]
>

Here's an idea, that leaves the flexibility to use strict comparisons on a
per case basis, but doesn't use the === syntax, which I don't like either.

switch($a){
   case true:
      //will match true, 1, etc...
      break;
   strict case false:
      //will not match anything except boolean FALSE
      //other stuff
      break;
   case false:
     //will match 0, null, etc....
     break;
}

You could expand this further with a second parameter to the switch, as
someone proposed above, that would put it in "strict" mode, and, allow a
keyword to change things back to non-strict as needed:

switch($a,true){
   loose case true:
      //will match true, 1, etc...
      break;
   case false:
      //will not match anything except boolean FALSE
      //other stuff
      break;
   loose case false:
     //will match 0, null, etc....
     break;
}

And, if it's in strict mode, you can still specify the strict keyword, and
if it's in non-strict mode, you can still specify the loose keyword.

Shouldn't even have to make them reserved words either, since they only
have meaning inside a switch statement, when immediately before the word
"case"


-- 
-- Chase
chasepeeler@gmail.com

--000000000000007f25056ea12e82--