Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:110292 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 70319 invoked from network); 28 May 2020 17:17:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 28 May 2020 17:17:24 -0000 Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 410551804D3 for ; Thu, 28 May 2020 08:58:07 -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=-0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_40,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-f171.google.com (mail-yb1-f171.google.com [209.85.219.171]) (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 ; Thu, 28 May 2020 08:58:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-yb1-f171.google.com with SMTP id j8so261966ybj.12 for ; Thu, 28 May 2020 08:58:06 -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 :content-transfer-encoding; bh=2AauyDeWmeL4ealIgtDd1eI5WgWqWcYLAEV9BCmm4hw=; b=hClElWn/wGDxZlVlYQf3hZMPZk50RCDS38+VlpMjzH8i1mUXEg7AV+Gj2aY4u6DN5P 4wfRM29KDscWTzPEHqjk9o8RfWvOHVHyYcLGKWEPnh+ieY4zRHUB31rGjVjr9y7YmgxE 5cwWNMpEAvpoD2Whh1GQX1aI4tL4rGle7wIzQHrlhqWB7F29E/Hgu8tqKjwQwYGg5tvC iDhvQNxF2IfMVD4Vt+BOKu8Me4iH54pCVzHB043Zklryk4vYiQ+I5r/fc0EejUuFRoM3 i8c4yjDjBjvmPk4FBSglBET228rNIJxh5T8NUxI4pBmwn1iqa7OqO4gmdhxDzZBrxiGB Frtg== 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:content-transfer-encoding; bh=2AauyDeWmeL4ealIgtDd1eI5WgWqWcYLAEV9BCmm4hw=; b=DHUTRkoRA/et6breBfAkf3sNtIZwd0LZCxsx2KY6jzkPsHguO2Maedr0gI+LK70DE1 liWcMKHrAWZEiMPnSlbF2IUYKV1vMNS5OaDeGvVzmFsCst4KRuptYBaV7FtXh7l7dssI bXr+YuIYJNUDN81MFnM0M09tUHB/ag97VIh9DzjsjDzkWSwL+lC+ahV5tq2LgauRYfkH xR5WXKrCeRYuBEI4Rp2pas2br6h23UoatnDeVSU7SVw43GquNa27E2Unl/p/PITqnGzQ FnPdduxYZtWFfqMuWTLPXiy6UiQoKlWqUYvTjtJdYyEeQIcEIXMvIvrDfmdDpEXMAJQq XNWg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532OAT1eTfV2EpTUREJ/uj/m11U1qO0uiggIPDesPLN+cqaDtFTk wdVrD+7ZDuMgfhso3Phyfj3ZRrNBODgssCY1QIUfPPtb X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzTtQ5Yl1DZvGH7PTsOU1Zw5nOU0XPthsuviIDkwOUeF0SdKYrlfVHlJoyySNUjYXdmQTIT4BXK/ZWULPXEZ0Q= X-Received: by 2002:a25:6dd5:: with SMTP id i204mr6409293ybc.347.1590681485585; Thu, 28 May 2020 08:58:05 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <41139a8e-7e32-484c-826b-de407d5eca4b@www.fastmail.com> <2df546c4-c8c1-4c0f-8ef4-a51bf1b2f4d2@www.fastmail.com> In-Reply-To: <2df546c4-c8c1-4c0f-8ef4-a51bf1b2f4d2@www.fastmail.com> Date: Thu, 28 May 2020 17:57:54 +0200 Message-ID: To: php internals Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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). > > Hm. A logical argument, but given its overwhelming support before and th= at it's therefore almost certain to pass in the future, I don't see why it'= s a net win to have PHP 8.0 missing that bit. It seemed uncontroversial, a= nd seems like a highly common use case. 80% were in favor of this feature but it's also worth noting that only 20 people have voted. To avoid risking another rejection and thus the RFC being delayed for a year I'd rather move the feature to a different RFC. Also, the feature being included in the first draft was a rash decision in the first place (completely my fault). There are multiple ways to deal with the value comparison (e.g. do type coercion like the switch or type-error on a non-boolean value) but they haven't been discussed at all. Ilija