Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:109497 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 64586 invoked from network); 1 Apr 2020 16:45:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 1 Apr 2020 16:45:10 -0000 Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A273F1804D3 for ; Wed, 1 Apr 2020 08:11:36 -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, 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-wm1-f49.google.com (mail-wm1-f49.google.com [209.85.128.49]) (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 ; Wed, 1 Apr 2020 08:11:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wm1-f49.google.com with SMTP id z7so75915wmk.1 for ; Wed, 01 Apr 2020 08:11:36 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=FDFHQ+hjdexhorZoGTcvgHGwcbns6JkVkSvKRWrqZUQ=; b=rlEoaH3YTukqP6t1jcdudMIH1uFwLNI7900Aydt9HJSg62Ldqd7GLiVZSQ26AGu32N uC2to8/NwzWIwnp1V4Q+qnE4QGKpgKroXg5DXRShaoNkgS7nWLuItRqrmNJk3biWjPrt L2tTQYenaRYjLcEayIGkejlOvjnDTuoHTuC3IKZnurJVSElsbPUAxsLHVDhMzOZ0XO4H /tZwsAt6vD8Egqg1GDTrK94xfaPgG8xJSRJsF4ORdEh4iiqpnTaQNCoq8MHimm5/TBA0 JZQ+dBrSVvHhXVrgDhtNGRDnWx0JROf7qqYwnc7y2+OWe+3S0Ct2IWU91H5MfzvXYydE p0Aw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=FDFHQ+hjdexhorZoGTcvgHGwcbns6JkVkSvKRWrqZUQ=; b=PQnVIvpwHmkTdZ+JsxhA0oPBOtfplQlXMUJx7I4pQpT1stQ116aft9TXsKFjdC56VD D5sRZ3okvp0EJ8aeEU4i85bDPaxOcxihKmGQAt7yrYvQ8emf+1jaRiTGKLpHvhnCN4Zg OUydmAC7Z6lZv8QyvREFR0ZEtaTKOhkAuMAr8Bz4IcO0lDC6ovyIpNPI1LbSqcL1xkKA G9ExAUmJRuzP3BRx9tFcAczJgS/HT+jS7V0jJI0PwBYGgwaNndbaYntNAvHKpnowewwu eLkL9+MTIM4EofgSTzLqY3LJFyRwgMgdNe3K1nLSH5t47/nQ8X70kHxGDEBxBDaUoBL6 SvJQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0PubSYJgGzF6Evu8dljb10jYdjEdlGRIoC71oUoVN6RKp9VcNex7j t5UdpDArCz1736iqpcxvIoX8MySk X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypLfzSnnboM9WXT1+PyxA7M1njxtxdQzb0nJLc990JGGGyGg3OtDsuVu4D/mH9ciiVU56Y7j0A== X-Received: by 2002:a1c:de87:: with SMTP id v129mr4841555wmg.68.1585753894545; Wed, 01 Apr 2020 08:11:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.14] (cpc84253-brig22-2-0-cust114.3-3.cable.virginm.net. [81.108.141.115]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id i8sm3552131wrb.41.2020.04.01.08.11.32 for (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 01 Apr 2020 08:11:33 -0700 (PDT) To: PHP internals References: <7E3BE38A-1DAB-4523-871A-7AAEE0E697C4@gmail.com> <76ebf15d-5f4f-f5a9-365c-d2e829c9961f@gmail.com> Message-ID: <7940faba-e2b4-3373-c546-98763682034a@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2020 16:11:30 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Language: en-GB Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][POLL] Switch expression From: rowan.collins@gmail.com (Rowan Tommins) On 01/04/2020 12:19, Ilija Tovilo wrote: > We can't really do that since break already accepts an integer telling > it how many enclosing structures it should jump out of. Sure, but we could use "return", or some other keyword. My point was that the syntax could look a lot closer to a switch statement if that was the aim. I think I like your existing syntax proposal better on its own merit, it just doesn't look anything like a switch statement, so I'd pick a new keyword like "match" or "select". > 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. I don't have karma to vote, but if I did, my answer to your poll would be "something else". I don't see "match" (or whatever we decide to call it) as a replacement for switch, or as a version of it. It would replace some uses of switch, just as switch replaces some uses of elseif, but in some ways it would be more related to the ternary operator - an expression with branches for different conditions, not a form of flow control. Regards, -- Rowan Tommins (né Collins) [IMSoP]