Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:112543
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.3.1-61-gb52c239-fm-20201210.001-gb52c2396
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <490a62fb-f6f4-4d7b-b46d-571abfa28618@www.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAESVnVqMp9fA59TO9b1a3poPKeysqQahxoy8o6TZnr3wE8UbYg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <b6e84a3b-012e-4ef3-8c2b-14c7fcf2d45d@www.fastmail.com>
 <CADyq6s+pe0NDvL22HTCinAcCFNxJc6ZozMRn_b0mhJT15tPPxA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABAhh3FX=u7gynxj5kO5nWDDM+d60jCSDYgkGnFqAnB3e8+KrQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAESVnVqMp9fA59TO9b1a3poPKeysqQahxoy8o6TZnr3wE8UbYg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2020 15:01:19 -0600
To: "php internals" <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Short-match
From: larry@garfieldtech.com ("Larry Garfield")

On Thu, Dec 17, 2020, at 10:23 AM, Sara Golemon wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 6:50 PM someniatko <someniatko@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > `match` is an expression, where as if-else construction is not. This
> > allows for combining it with a potential future feature of single line
> > functions and methods. For example (hypothetical syntax is used):
> >
> > ```
> > $getNumber = fn(int $number) => match {
> >     $number < 0 => NumberKind::NEGATIVE,
> >     $number == 0 => NumberKind::ZERO,
> >     $number > 0 => NumberKind::POSITIVE,
> > };
> > ```
> >
> 
> That does read attractively, yes.  This is the example that should have
> been offered first as it shows the expression nature shining.
> 
> To contrast that with what would be possible now in an expressive
> functional form:
> 
> $getNumber = fn(int $number) => [
>   -1 => NumberKind::NEGATIVE,
>   0 => NumberKind::ZERO,
>   1 => NumberKind::POSITIVE,
> ][$number <=> 0];
> 
> The match form *certainly* reads more naturally than the spaceship indexing
> form even though both take up equal space.
> 
> -Sara

It looks like the quoted part from someniatko changed from a named function to an anon function?  Not sure what happened there.

I've included both a named and lambda version of his example in the RFC, however, and linked to the short-functions RFC as that would allow the form he originally listed.  They complement each other nicely.

--Larry Garfield