Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:110250 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 25663 invoked from network); 22 May 2020 17:03:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 22 May 2020 17:03:11 -0000 Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA2D81804F8 for ; Fri, 22 May 2020 08:42:22 -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-yb1-f182.google.com (mail-yb1-f182.google.com [209.85.219.182]) (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 ; Fri, 22 May 2020 08:42:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-yb1-f182.google.com with SMTP id l17so4820594ybk.1 for ; Fri, 22 May 2020 08:42:22 -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=EbGn81DxHiyN+610/WfjlQx23jG2+N1JnW9iX1ok3jA=; b=oRQxRCQDMpXKC1hNfxUjQVSyolgacl+I3w9WURT9+9lb2A1TWv2/3FK6F8eQVER7Pc Rz2C/KRWi6exv7+201/nKvMh/z5EqTf9iTrBq1HkdPWdhjFT8o4JFk5Bvh/LP+igxCzt 5WiJikxX651noE0KgcwM0amzaD/vVpORSRuAedHobCN2Ys6ruNSwDpxtKPqk+dmV/xXI Ne3LPArPjESBI3g2QLg4QyCNaWvZYLAoefZRj5EFzGaZQwojotJ+ReBpgt/DYzoyEL4G 03HOjqphqJoHh9WVohX+tnQlV9L+/5oBgjcLA20UH2dRBsCyku6aOuX4Ak2/ccKZgS9D SzEw== 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=EbGn81DxHiyN+610/WfjlQx23jG2+N1JnW9iX1ok3jA=; b=E4dUCW8aN4XtmX/s2HPD8RYqFhYFnlXmD4a6hgwhYrZogUiqqJXHpM2Wpe54GiI04Z nWQxFKbgbI1KMbLg8nzbWlrdDMUVB3dNMS092xgvp48W5MxWoMFpQa3MEeeKIji5v0M3 e8JVhjdu346v0xlrYItpAhCWMkxdiFaODnhlE87NTD5J9e1Q1eFAC7gK6L0nhF9Y3Nsi f1uDcaaWsYGBjWmX2fFSsAMHWblrqRCakH8Atr2fPBpX4M3Iz7GpjFtWtWEKgw578xGf VJ6Y9C6U6oa9+GdPfzsX7l8swY0htQD/abbuR29kkMJxNxbvGkjLG2Xj7CInfGiETLEK ehuA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5301isqan/Iq9XfPXwvtUXEFrxfnXo8vtgQCkLEYjt1qfBSHzpx9 hLvJ51HpdO8wsnIzIjTRhw7a6BG4VgerETBSEq1wqe0L X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwMHhLzDg4mHRkaxjk000TMjqBjVCjq5C8mw5SqkXVQW6ZAZgeFK7JOW/b5Xf0ZzVlP+eoThIPbwqnJe0fxQLs= X-Received: by 2002:a25:41c3:: with SMTP id o186mr23864348yba.48.1590162141803; Fri, 22 May 2020 08:42:21 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <41139a8e-7e32-484c-826b-de407d5eca4b@www.fastmail.com> In-Reply-To: <41139a8e-7e32-484c-826b-de407d5eca4b@www.fastmail.com> Date: Fri, 22 May 2020 17:42:10 +0200 Message-ID: To: Larry Garfield Cc: php internals Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][DISCUSSION] Match expression v2 From: tovilo.ilija@gmail.com (Ilija Tovilo) Hi Larry > My one question is why you're not including the implicit "match (true)" > in this version, when the secondary vote on the previous RFC was > 80% in favor of it. I received quite a bit of feedback that the RFC was too complex. I tried to make the RFC simpler by removing all non-essential parts. I'm ready to create a follow up RFC for this (although it would probably not make PHP 8.0). > (And I still think the argument is stronger if you include a comparison > to ternary assignment, but that doesn't affect implementation.) Makes sense, I will incorporate an example :) Ilija