Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:126286
Feedback-ID: i8414410d:Fastmail
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2025 14:49:55 -0600
To: "php internals" <internals@lists.php.net>
Message-ID: <808f6c7a-369e-40af-8fe5-9f14317be756@app.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <99F2F71B-8BBA-449B-9FB4-54B1B608BB0A@gmail.com>
References: <2A357F88-BAF4-41DE-8646-6BBBF4EFF6F6@gmail.com>
 <CAPyj-LCzB9Z3k5mUwV2Y+gZZPGCvEXdJFHvWePcyti-kf-xQ2A@mail.gmail.com>
 <f7ab3c7e-d966-4e98-97b3-f92108a3fd02@app.fastmail.com>
 <99F2F71B-8BBA-449B-9FB4-54B1B608BB0A@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Empty subject in match and switch constructions
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: larry@garfieldtech.com ("Larry Garfield")

On Tue, Feb 4, 2025, at 1:43 AM, Dmitry Derepko wrote:
> Hi, Larry!
>
>> On Feb 3, 2025, at 10:01=E2=80=AFAM, Larry Garfield <larry@garfieldte=
ch.com> wrote:
>>=20
>> On Sun, Feb 2, 2025, at 7:40 AM, Ilija Tovilo wrote:
>>> Hi Dmitrii
>>>=20
>>> On Sun, Feb 2, 2025 at 1:05=E2=80=AFPM Dmitry Derepko <xepozzd@gmail=
.com> wrote:
>>>=20
>>> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/short-match
>>> https://externals.io/message/112496
>>=20
>> Hi, author of that RFC here.  Although there seemed to be interest fo=
r it in the initial match() discussion, the stand-alone follow up was me=
t with a giant "meh", which is why I didn't pursue it further.  I would =
still be in favor of it, though, if it could get through internals.  I'm=
 happy to have someone pick it up and run with it, or collaborate on reb=
ooting that RFC.  (I'm pretty sure the patch for it actually worked, at =
least it did at the time.)
>>=20
>> --Larry Garfield
>
> It looks funny that I=E2=80=99m following in your steps with the RFC=E2=
=80=99s didn=E2=80=99t=20
> go through =F0=9F=98=83
>
> By the way, I=E2=80=99ve implemented empty match subject in a bit diff=
erent=20
> way: https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/17692

I have no particular preference here; whichever approach Ilija thinks is=
 better is what we should go with.  (Feel free to steal the AST printer =
parts from my PR if we end up going with your PR.)

> About the RFC. What=E2=80=99s the way to re-activate it?=20
> Will you re-activate it?
> Do I need to create a new one referencing to this one?
> Can you share rights to edit the RFC and we can push it further togeth=
er?

Procedurally, since it was never voted on, I believe we can just move it=
 back to "in discussion" on the wiki, start a new official discussion th=
read, and go to town.  I'm fine with doing that if everyone else is.  An=
d of course add your name to it as well (and anyone else that contribute=
s).

The main question is whether there's enough interest to justify taking i=
t to a vote.  Would anyone actually vote Yes for this? :-)

Feature-wise, I have to say I'd keep it strict-always, as both our PRs i=
mplement it.  Yes, that means preg_match() wouldn't be able to slot in t=
ransparently.  I'm frankly OK with that; hopefully pattern matching can =
be extended to a better regex syntax anyway in the future.


--Larry Garfield