Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:109431 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 91904 invoked from network); 29 Mar 2020 23:22:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 29 Mar 2020 23:22:16 -0000 Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCC131801FD for ; Sun, 29 Mar 2020 14:48:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on php-smtp4.php.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-ASN: AS15169 209.85.128.0/17 X-Spam-Virus: No X-Envelope-From: Received: from mail-ed1-f46.google.com (mail-ed1-f46.google.com [209.85.208.46]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS for ; Sun, 29 Mar 2020 14:48:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ed1-f46.google.com with SMTP id z65so18533849ede.0 for ; Sun, 29 Mar 2020 14:48:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=mddWrZMjPLKJPWoYqonBTRt98DBM1myZxoYNT0XSLSI=; b=RvkU+pquZ4YX/BsGTMmyfPONTLWjvL9mJiXXOygQ3DtfsdW1D+Xm8b9yT6Gn+L64ko UQ4bReUZInHDIa8WUXNLOSbNo4LxYdx1nbVa95k0d97EQ2zyXL01ONfe6WyXR1mtlzGG 4M30zoAw6BuUdlC/qUvfk3i7J+lXfCuIBaUFkRqapfIs5kaQP+t5TOg/qEdMawowFoGz HwZAClUnPewDWg5v9sdjIDea2vWOmYMlgR9RUvHp7E5jBhZTEpgeeEF8NLPzt6+IyuId JrCwXnSJrcbLKzukVQ+SHkpVBjW6XcUWO/38j3SuA5EMLhdReUbqSe+wiqxXmyf/+8ir 1Q1Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=mddWrZMjPLKJPWoYqonBTRt98DBM1myZxoYNT0XSLSI=; b=RkQML/9icCrSYGP1+iJj7DMlzJC9OVPQCULZc9iJXdKvXRPpTSQkWrJKKNC+sPllJy FiiHDd3Kr/KCnXmakMCMqTy2UDM07KJZb5Uo33WpAR1x1RJlunx0JF6TmqBJ3DztiO2l qr04GC9MHeQZ6y5oQ/9SOEwj1q+sLtqIF85+/Jf1QJBdFFu0FeH6Rj3KzS6GwW5TF/K5 QGnEuNEAOoILqh1WmX92q8rySf5nncJKLXA4LbZ8CKFIRqr4eTVj9OTGsFa1Tvb325ab Zo5Pby8uUnW/adzOvXwknJdd5AIKvxSn3eI16zlO5VnsaqWARgSmM7vuw+pSa3fFOX9Y +grw== X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ1xT2K2JBGjneGZGIAxsquC+i1zWR4QDBbJwlN27WV8IPSTrNIl 01a1ajTtv0FLQxTsCDC3UKQLjnKIptnnRv5p4gKPf96f X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vtXsjiS08O+vAK7qIEfg3+1jzCphVZ+3UW8eUTOKeVX2MmSOTNqZH7ZlL5thA2qeGZO/dEJQASmRxQBLN6JFwI= X-Received: by 2002:a50:d5da:: with SMTP id g26mr9226976edj.179.1585518475076; Sun, 29 Mar 2020 14:47:55 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <047092C7-84FB-42AB-8084-7B83F76F55C1@me.com> <026AF97E-ED0C-411C-8942-7DA7CC9705DB@me.com> <34ce624e-7d00-4f63-2c4f-da125deb65b8@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2020 23:47:42 +0200 Message-ID: To: Ilija Tovilo Cc: PHP internals Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000007de8b205a2054937" Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] switch expression From: george.banyard@gmail.com ("G. P. B.") --0000000000007de8b205a2054937 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 at 23:04, Ilija Tovilo wrote: > > Having two syntaxes for one keyword is not a good idea, > > We're already doing that. What about classes vs anonymous objects? > Functions vs closures? > They're using the same keywords. There's no confusion. > > Ilija > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > No offence but, that argument is dumb. A closure and a function are the same thing because the Closure class comes from a need to have consistent functions regardless of scope. And an anonymous object still behaves like a normal object, you can extend it, add methods to it, use traits. On the contrary having two different meaning for a fundamental construct is just weird, and if that goes to vote I'll vote against it. Moreover, no need to repeat mistakes other languages have made. Best regards George P. Banyard --0000000000007de8b205a2054937--