Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:112504
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <b6e84a3b-012e-4ef3-8c2b-14c7fcf2d45d@www.fastmail.com>
 <CADyq6s+pe0NDvL22HTCinAcCFNxJc6ZozMRn_b0mhJT15tPPxA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEiu4gzw8Q__VZADPbacNz4N4ccoqEvJVfqr37s0+FKZPVo05A@mail.gmail.com> <CAESVnVq2w0omVEiSCj5gY=i5mmrZr5D16DZtjPc1OZGNbyJYug@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAESVnVq2w0omVEiSCj5gY=i5mmrZr5D16DZtjPc1OZGNbyJYug@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2020 21:59:18 +0000
Message-ID: <CAGBsUrfqnPitQWK6KYqN0_mRKU99hJ18BN-_Wze98+Dm0fnv-Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sara Golemon <pollita@php.net>
Cc: Doug Nelson <dougnelson@silktide.com>, Marco Pivetta <ocramius@gmail.com>, 
	Larry Garfield <larry@garfieldtech.com>, php internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Short-match
From: tekiela246@gmail.com (Kamil Tekiela)

I don't understand what's the advantage of the short match? Why would
I ever want to use it?
If I ever saw this kind of code in my codebase then I would
immediately refactor it to use if statements. That is just abuse of
match statement in my opinion. If someone wants to abuse match syntax
like this then I think they should put (true) after it to make it
clear what they are doing.
Allowing match without the match subject will be lead to confusing
problems for a lot of beginners who will forget the match subject or
mis-copy it and then wonder why their application does not behave as
it should.
IMHO I see no benefit of adding this feature to PHP, and I actually
see disadvantages.

On Mon, 14 Dec 2020 at 21:23, Sara Golemon <pollita@php.net> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 2:24 PM Doug Nelson <dougnelson@silktide.com> wrote:
>
> > Both you and Sara at different points have talked about thinking was bad
> > practice, but I've not read anything compelling about why it should be
> > considered as such.
> >
> >
> I'm not a full -1 on the concept (especially as match(true) has the
> convenience of returning a value), but it's very square peg in a round hole
> to me.
>
> At the end of the day though, that's a style choice and not one I have any
> business imposing on anyone, and certainly within the context of this diff,
> the actual change is trivial.  It's sugar for match(true) that looks like
> match.  /shrug
>
> I might suggest broadening the scope to include `switch` as well though.
> If we're going to codify match(true) as a pattern, we should at least be
> consistent about it.
>
> -Sara