Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:110695
To: Ilija Tovilo <tovilo.ilija@gmail.com>
References: <CAPyj-LB7jSiv+7DheaYpEcZXbjeJ9OMsRUTMOofnWbH4LyOQhA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPyj-LCV640AZpc=GPb2A+FxqWcSgnzzAH0VVLedCuM0RawmVQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <37f1f8fb-0e1b-cc39-f4b6-6c943a731d49@telia.com>
 <CAPyj-LAreEydWbK1JcBduQuDtu8r4Bv5a-Oma7mFkr3H2Y3y2A@mail.gmail.com>
 <250b7671-2919-9385-c149-931212397e4b@telia.com>
 <CAPyj-LDex6tQLp3HmCF6EitOcmBwuVb5ZiGuQsWWN0yUz09XwA@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Message-ID: <04d86e2d-0815-195a-6111-3034e0ca5918@telia.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2020 17:35:09 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAPyj-LDex6tQLp3HmCF6EitOcmBwuVb5ZiGuQsWWN0yUz09XwA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-GB
Subject: Re: [RFC][DISCUSSION] Match expression v2
From: bjorn.x.larsson@telia.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Bj=c3=b6rn_Larsson?=)

Hi Ilija,Den 2020-06-18 kl. 22:51, skrev Ilija Tovilo:

> Hi Björn
>
>>> I'd like to announce the match expression v2 RFC:
>>> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/match_expression_v2
>> Well one could argue that when working with legacy code containing
>> switch statements where one gradually migrates to match, it might be
>> easier to have the same separator, i.e. ":".
> I think that's somewhat of a moot point. The syntax of match is quite
> different (match instead of switch, no case, no break, colon instead
> of case, comma instead of semicolon, trailing semicolon). Just making
> one of those the same doesn't make a meaningful difference for ease of
> migration.
Agree on that! One thing though. Is semicolon mandatory or is it optional
like in the first RFC? Feels a bit odd with a semicolon after a curly 
bracket.
>> Is the proposed => separator inspired by Rust or Scala? Checked what
>> other languages used and  for switch it's ":" of course. So one might
>> argue that to align with match statements in other languages "=>" is
>> a good choice, but OTOH if ones sees match as an enhanced switch,
>> having ":" as a separator is another alternative.
> Since nobody else asked for it, just for you I compiled a list of
> other languages :)
>
> https://gist.github.com/iluuu1994/11ac292cf7daca8162798d08db219cd5
>
> The conclusion: Most languages also use some form of arrow. It makes
> sense to me to stay consistent with those languages.
>
> Ilija

I think this is a very good motivation on why select => as a symbol and
I'm glad it's listed in the RFC.

r//Björn