Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:109496
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAPyj-LBfSHyF-_zxFX9UScrmKc2Jo2G-GUwQ24fTqqyzxEc+kQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <7E3BE38A-1DAB-4523-871A-7AAEE0E697C4@gmail.com> <76ebf15d-5f4f-f5a9-365c-d2e829c9961f@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <76ebf15d-5f4f-f5a9-365c-d2e829c9961f@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2020 13:19:21 +0200
Message-ID: <CAPyj-LBuC-q_MOseDqnwgu-aDZHRfRc3L8xEsiYz2eGt6Sd9Vw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Rowan Tommins <rowan.collins@gmail.com>
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][POLL] Switch expression
From: tovilo.ilija@gmail.com (Ilija Tovilo)

Hi Rowan

I agree that the structure of the RFC is sub optimal. Honestly, I've
rewritten and moved things at least 5 times and it's still not good.
I'll see how I can improve it.

> so we could maybe combine them with the break keyword:
>
> $y = switch ($x) {
>      case 0:
>          break 'Foo';
>      case 1:
>          break 'Bar';
>      case 2:
>          break 'Baz';
> }

We can't really do that since break already accepts an integer telling
it how many enclosing structures it should jump out of.

> The other issues discussed in your RFC - fallthrough, inexhaustiveness,
> type coercion - are valuable things to discuss, but each one takes this
> further away from being a "switch expression", and into being "a new
> value-matching expression". As I said in my last e-mail, I don't think
> that's a bad thing; I really like the proposed syntax, as a new
> construct for picking one of a set of expressions, and would be happy to
> see the RFC re-focussed in that direction.

Yes, I can absolutely see your point. The point of the poll is to see
what direction we should take. After that I'll try to clean up the
RFC.

Thanks!
Ilija